THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


v  s 

; 


OB, 


BY 

A.  C.  DAYTON. 


VOL.  I. 


MEMPHIS,   TENN.: 
SOUTH-WESTERN     PUBLISHING     HOUSE. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1866,  by 

R.    B.    DAVIDSON, 
In  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Middle  District  of  Tennessee. 


?s 

525 


v.  i 


OE,  THE  HEROINE  OF  FAITH. 


in 

CM 


O 
O 

*z 

O 
O 

a 
ui 


9 

< 


INTRODUCTION. 

DOUBTS   SUGGESTED. 

BOTHER,  have  I  ever  been  baptized  ?" 

The  questioner  was  a  bright,  intelligent, 
blue-eyed  lad,  some  thirteen  summers  old. 
The  deep  seriousness  of  his  countenance, 
and  the  earnest,  wistful  gaze  with  which  he 
looked  into  his  mother's  face,  showed  that, 
for  the  moment  at  least,  the  question  seined  to  him  a 
very  important  one. 

"  Certainly,  my  son ;  both  you  and  your  sister  were 
baptized  by  the  Rev.  Doctor  Fisher,  at  the  time  when  I 
united  with  the  church.  Your  sister  remembers  it  well, 
for  she  was  six  years  old  ;  but  you  were  too  young  to 
know  any  thing  about  it.  Your  Aunt  Jones  said  it  was 
the  most  solemn  scene  she  ever  witnessed  ;  and  such  a 
prayer  as  the  good  old  doctor  made  for  you,  I  never 
heard  before." 

"  But,  mother,"  rejoined  the  lad,  "  sister  and  I  have 
been  down  to  the  river  to  see  a  lady  baptized  by  the  Bap 
tist  minister,  who  came  here  last  month  and  commenced 
preaching  in  the  school-house.  They  went  down  into  the 
river,  and  then  he  plunged  her  under  the  water,  and 

(3) 


4  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

quickly  raised  her  out  again  ;  und  sister  says  if  that  was 
baptism,  then  we  were  not  baptized,  because  we  stood  on 
the  dry  floor  of  the  church,  and  the  preacher  dipped  his 
hand  into  a  bowl  of  water,  and  sprinkled  a  few  drops  on 
our  foreheads :  and  she  says  Cousin  John  Jones  was  not 
baptized  either ;  for  the  preacher  only  took  a  little  pitcher 
of  water,  and  poured  a  little  stream  upon  his  head. 
Sister  says  she  don't  see  how  there  can  be  three  bap 
tisms,  when  the  Scripture  says,  "  One  Lord,  one  faith, 
one  baptism." 

"  Your  sister  is  always  studying  about  things  above 
her  reach,  my  son.  It  is  better  for  young  people  like 
you  not  to  trouble  yourselves  too  much  about  these 
knotty  questions  in  theology." 

"  But,  mother,  this  don't  seem  to  me  to  be  a  knotty 
question  at  all.  One  minister  takes  a  person  down  into 
the  water,  and  dips  her  under  it ;  another  stands  on  the 
dry  floor  of  the  church  before  the  pulpit,  and  sprinkles  a 
few  drops  into  her  face ;  another  pours  a  liHle  stream 
upon  her  head.  Now,  anybody  can  see  that  they  do 
three  different  things  ;  and  if  each  of  them  is  baptism, 
then  there  must  be  three  baptisms.  There  is  no  theology 
about  that,  is  there  ?" 

"Yes,  my  child,  this  is  a  theological  question,  and  I 
suppose  it  must  be  a  very  difficult  one,  since  I  am  told 
that  some  very  good  and  wise  men  disagree  about  it." 

"  But,  mother,  they  all  agree  that  there  is  only  one 
baptism,  do  they  not  ?  And  if  there  is  only  one,  why 
don't  they  just  look  into  the  Testament  and  see  what  it 
is  ?  If  the  Testament  says  sprinkle,  then  it  is  sprink 
ling  ;  if  it  says  pour,  then  it  is  pouring  ;  if  it  says  dip, 
then  it  is  dipping.  I  mean  to  read  the  Testament,  and 
see  if  I  cannot  decide  which  it  is  for  myself." 

"  Do  you  think,  my  son,  that  you  will  be  able  to  know 
as  much  about  it  as  your  Uncle  Jones,  or  Dr.  Fisher, 


DOUBTS    SUGGESTED.  5 

who  baptized  you,  or  Dr.  Barnes,  whose  notes  you  use 
in  learning  your  Sunday-school  lesson,  and  all  the  pious 
and  learned  ministers  of  our  church,  and  the  Methodist 
Church,  and  the  Episcopal  Church  ?  They  have  studied 
the  Testament  through  and  through,  and  they  all  agree 
that  a  child  who  is  sprinkled  is  properly  baptized." 

"  Yes,  mother,  but  if  the  baptisms  in  the  New  Testa 
ment  were  sprinkling  (and  of  course  they  were,  or  such 
wise  and  good  men  would  not  say  so),  why  can't  I  find 
it  there,  as  well  as  anybody  ?" 

"  Very  well,  my  son,  you  can  read  and  see  ;  but  if  you 
should  happen  to  come  to  a  different  conclusion  from 
these  great  and  learned  men,  I  hope  you  won't  set  up 
your  bojdsh  judgment  against  that  of  the  wisest  theolo 
gians  of  the  age.  But  here  comes  your  sister.  I 
wonder  if  she  is  going  to  become  a  theologian  too  1" 

Mrs.  Ernest  (the  mother  of  whom  we  are  speaking) 
was  born  of  very  worthy  parents,  who  were  consistent 
members  of  the  Presbyterian  Church ;  and  she  had 
grown  up  as  one  of  the  "  baptized  children  of  the  church." 
As  she  "appeared  to  be  sober  and  steady,  and  to  have 
sufficient  knowledge  to  discern  the  Lord's  body,"  she 
was  doubtless  informed,  according  to  the  directions  of 
the  confession  of  faith,  page  504,  that  it  was  "  her  duty 
and  her  privilege  to  come  to  the  Lord's  supper."  But 
she  had  felt  no  inclination  to  do  so  until  after  the  death 
of  her  husband.  Then,  in  the  day  of  her  sorrow,  she 
looked  upward,  and  began  to  feel  a  new,  though  not  an 
intense  interest  in  the  things  of  religion.  She  made  a 
public  profession,  and  requested  baptism  for  her  two 
children. 

The  little  boy  was  then  an  infant,  and  his  sister  was 
about  six  years  old,  a  sprightly,  interesting  child,  whose 
flowing  ringlets,  dimpled  chin,  rosy  cheeks,  and  spark 
ling  eyes,  were  the  admiration  of  every  beholder. 


6  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

Twelve  years  had  passed.  The  lovely  girl  had  be 
come  a  beautiful  and  remarkably  intelligent  young  lady. 
The  little  babe  had  grown  into  the  noble  looking,  blue- 
eyed  lad,  with  a  strong,  manly  frame,  and  a  face  and 
brow  which  gave  promise  of  capacity  and  independence 
of  thought  far  above  the  average  of  his  companions. 

Theodosia  and  Edwin.  How  they  loved  each  other ! 
She,  with  the  doting  affection  of  an  elder  child  and  only 
sister,  who  had  watched  the  earliest  developments  of  his 
mind,  and  been  his  companion  and  his  teacher  from  his 
infancy ;  he,  with  the  confiding,  reverential,  yet  familiar 
love  of  a  kind-hearted  and  impulsive  boy,  to  one  who 
was  to  him  the  standard  at  once  of  female  beauty  and 
womanly  accomplishments. 

Theodosia  came  in,  not  with  that  elastic  step  and 
sprightly  air  which  was  habitual  with  her,  but  with  a 
slow  and  solemn  gait ;  scarcely  raising  her  eyes  to  meet 
her  mother's  inquiring  gaze,  she  passed  through  to  her 
own  room,  and  closed  the  door. 

The  mother  was  struck  with  the  deep  and  earnest 
seriousness  of  her  face  and  manner.  What  could  it 
mean?  What  could  have  happened  to  distress  her 
child? 

"  Edwin,  my  son,  what  is  the  matter  with  your  sister  ?" 

"  Indeed,  mother,  I  do  not  know  of  any  thing.  We 
stood  together  talking  at  the  river  bank,  and  just  before 
we  left,  Mr.  Percy  came  up  to  walk  home  with  her.  It 
must  be  something  that  has  happened  by  the  way." 

The  mother's  mind  was  relieved.  Mr.  Percy  had  been 
for  many  months  a  frequent  and  welcome  visitor  at  their 
pretty  cottage,  and  had  made  no  secret  of  his  admira 
tion  of  her  accomplished  and  beautiful  daughter ;  though 
he  had  never,  until  a  few  weeks  since,  formally  declared 
his  love.  Mrs.  Ernest  did  not  doubt  but  that  some 
lovers'  quarrel  had  grown  up  in  their  walk,  and  this 


DOUBTS    SUGGESTED.  7 

had  cast  a  shadow  upon  Theodosia's  sunny  face.  She 
waited  somewhat  impatiently  for  her  daughter  to  come 
out  and  confirm  her  conjectures.  She  did  not  come, 
however,  and  at  length  the  mother  arose,  and  softly 
opening  the  door,  looked  into  the  room.  Theodosia 
was  on  her  knees.  She  did  not  hear  the  door,  or  become 
conscious  of  the  presence  of  her  mother.  In  broken, 
whispered  sentences,  mingled  with  sobs,  she  prayed : 
"  Oh,  Lord,  enlighten  my  mind.  Oh,  teach  me  thy  way. 
Let  me  not  err  in  the  understanding  of  thy  word ;  and 
oh  give  me  strength,  I  do  beseech  thee,  to  do  whatever 
I  find  to  be  my  duty.  I  would  not  go  wrong.  Help ! 
oh  help  me  to  go  right !" 

Awe-struck  and  confounded,  Mrs.  Ernest  drew  back, 
and  tremblingly  awaited  the  explanation  she  so  much 
desired  to  hear. 

When  at  length  the  young  lady  came  out,  there  was 
still  upon  her  face  the  same  serious  earnestness  of  ex 
pression,  but  there  seemed  less  of  sadness,  and  there 
was  also  that  perfect  repose  of  the  countenance,  which 
is  the  result  of  a  newly  formed,  but  firmly  settled  deter 
mination  of  purpose. 

Mrs.  Ernest,  as  she  looked  at  her,  was  more  perplexed 
than  ever.  She  was,  however,  resolved  to  obtain  at  once 
a  solution  of  the  mystery. 

"  Mr.  Percy  walked  home  with  you,  did  he  not,  my 
daughter  ?" 

"  Yes,  mother." 

"  Did  you  find  him  as  interesting  as  usual  ?  What 
was  the  subject  of  your  conversation  ?" 

"  We  were  talking  of  the  baptism  at.  the  river." 

"  Of  nothing  else  ?" 

"  No,  mother ;  this  occupied  all  the  time.'' 

"  Did  he  say  nothing  about  himself?" 


8  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

"  Not  a  word,  mother,  except  in  regard  to  the  ques 
tion  whether  he  had  ever  been  baptized." 

"Why,  what  in  the  world  has  possessed  you  all? 
Your  brother  came  running  home  to  ask  me  if  he  had 
been  baptized ;  Mr.  Percy  is  talking  about  whether  he 
has  been  baptized.  I  wonder  if  you  are  not  beginning 
to  fancy  that  you  have  never  been  baptized  ?" 

"  I  do  indeed  begin  to  doubt  it,  mother ;  for  if  that 
was  baptism  which  we  witnessed  at  the  river  this  even 
ing,  I  am  quite  sure  that  I  never  was." 

"Well,  I  do  believe  that  Baptist  preacher  is  driving 
you  all  crazy.  Pray  tell  me,  what  did  he  do  or  say, 
that  gave  you  such  a  serious  face,  and  put  these  new 
crotchets  in  your  head  ?" 

"  Nothing  at  all,  mother.  He  simply  read  from  the 
New  Testament  the  account  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus  and 
of  the  Eunuch.  Then  he  took  the  candidate,  and  they 
went  down  both  of  them  into  the  water,  and  he  bap 
tized  her,  and  then  they  came  up  out  of  the  water.  I 
could  not  help  seeing  that  this  is  just  what  is  recorded 
of  Jesus  and  the  Eunuch.  If  so,  then  it  is  the  baptism 
of  the  Scriptures ;  and  it  is  certainly  a  very  different 
thing  from  that  which  was  done  to  me,  when  Dr.  Fisher 
sprinkled  a  few  drops  of  water  in  my  face." 

"  Of  course,  my  dear,  it  was  different ;  but  I  don't 
think  the  quantity  of  water  employed  affects  the  validity 
.of  the  baptism.  There  is  no  virtue  in  the  water,  and  a 
few  drops  are  just  as  good  as  all  the  floods  of  Jordan." 

"  But,  mother,  it  is  not  in  the  quantity  of  water  that 
the  difference  consists  ;  it  is  in  the  act  performed.  One 
sprinkles  a  little  water  in  the  face ;  another  pours  a 
little  water  on  the  head ;  another  buries  the  whole  body 
under  the  water  and  raises  it  out  again.  Two  apply 
the  water  to  the  person,  the  other  plunges  the  person 
into  the  water.  They  are  surely  very  different  acts : 


DOUBTS    SUGGESTED.  11 

and  if  what  I  saw  this  evening  was  scriptural  baptism, 
then  it  is  certain  that  I  have  never  been  baptized." 

"  Well,  my  child,  we  won't  dispute  about  it  now ;  but 
I  hope  you  are  not  thinking  about  leaving  your  own 
church  ;  the  church  in  which  your  grandfather  and  your 
grandmother  lived  and  died :  and  in  which  so  many  of  the 
most  talented  and  influential  families  in  the  country  are 
proud  to  rank  themselves,  to  unite  with  this  little  com 
pany  of  ignorant,  ill-mannered  mechanics  and  common 
people,  who  have  all  at  once  started  up  here  from 
nothing." 

"  You  know,  my  mother,  that  it  is  about  a  year  since 
I  made  a  profession  of  religion.  I  trust  that  before  I 
did  so,  I  had  given  myself  up  to  do  the  will  of  my 
Heavenly  Father.  Since  then  I  have  felt  that  I  am  not 
my  own.  I  am  bought  with  a  price.  It  is  my  pleasure, 
as  well  as  my  duty,  to  obey  my  Saviour  I  ask,  as  Paul 
did,  Lord,  what  wilt  thou  have  me  to  do  ?  You  taught 
me  this  lesson  of  obedience  yourself;  and  I  am  sure  you 
would  not  have  me  on  any  account  neglect  or  refuse  to 
obey  my  Saviour.  If  HE  commands  me  to  be  baptized, 
and  the  command  has  never  been  obeyed,  /  shall  be 
obliged  to  do  it.  And  I  trust  my  mother  will  encourage 
me  in  my  obedience  to  that  precious  Redeemer  she 
taught  me  to  love." 

One  who  looked  into  the  mother's  face,  at  that  mo 
ment,  might  have  read  there  "  a  tablet  of  unutterable 
thoughts."  She  did  not  try  to  speak  them.  We  will 
not  try  to  write  them.  She  sat  silent  for  a  moment, 
drew  her  breath  deeply  and  heavily,  then  rising  hastily, 
went  to  look  for  something  in  her  daughter's  room. 

Theodosia  was  not  only  grieved  but  surprised  at  the 
evident  distress  which  she  had  given  her  mother.  While 
on  her  knees  in  prayer  to  God  after  her  return  from  the 
river,  she  had  determined  to  do  her  duty,  and  obey  the 


1-2  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

commandment  of  Jesus  Christ,  her  blessed  Saviour,  what 
ever  she  might  find  it  to  be.  But  she  had  not  deter- 
termined  to  -be  immersed.  That  river  baptism,  con 
nected  with  the  reading  of  those  passages  of  Scripture, 
had  only  filled  her  mind  with  doubts ;  these  doubts  had 
yet  to  become  convictions.  The  investigation  was  yet 
to  be  made.  The  question,  Have  I  ever  been  baptized  ? 
had  been  prayerfully  asked.  It  was  yet  to  be  conscien 
tiously  answered.  But  if  the  very  doubt  was  so  dis 
tressing  to  her  .mother,  and  so  ridiculous  to  Mr.  Percy 
(as  it  had  seemed  to  be  from  some  remarks  he  made  on 
the  way  home  from  the  river),  how  would  the  final  deci 
sion  affect  them,  if  it  should  be  made  in  favor  of  immer 
sion  !  Yet,  aided  by  power  from  on  high,  she  felt  her 
resolution  grow  still  stronger  to  please  God  rather  than 
those  whom  she  loved  better  than  all  else  on  earth.  And 
she  had  peace  verging  almost  on  joy. 

When  her  mother  came  back,  Theodosia  saw  that  she 
had  been  weeping ;  but  no  further  allusion  was  made  to 
the  subject  of  Baptism,  until  Mr.  Percy  came  in  after 
supper. 

This  young  man  was  a  lawyer.  He  had  united  with 
the  Presbyterian  Society,  to  which  Mrs.  Ernest  and  her 
daughter  belonged,  during  an  extensive  revival  of  reli 
gion,  while  he  was  yet  a  mere  boy.  Since  he  had  come 
to  years  of  maturity,  he  had  constantly  doubted  whether 
he  was  really  a  converted  man,  and  often  seriously  re 
gretted  the  obligation  that  bound  him  to  a  public  recog 
nition  of  the  claims  of  personal  religion.  He  often 
made  it  convenient  to  be  absent  when  the  Sacrament  of 
the  Supper  was  to  be  celebrated,  from  an  inward  con 
sciousness  that  he  was  an  unfit  communicant ;  yet  his 
external  deportment  was  unexceptionable,  and  his 
brethren  regarded  him  as  a  most  excellent  member, 
and  one  whose  intellectual  capacity  and  acquirements 


DOUBTS    INCREASING.  13 

would,  one  day,  place  him  in  a  condition  to  reflect  great 
honor  on  the  denomination  to  which  he  belonged. 

He  had  already  taken  a  high  position  in  the  ranks  of 
his  profession ;  and  had  come  to  the  sage  conclusion, 
that  the  possession  of  the  heart  and  hand  of  the  charm 
ing  Theodosia  was  all  that  was  required  to  complete  his 
arrangements  for  worldly  happiness  ;  and  having  over 
heard  her  remark  to  her  brother,  that  if  what  they  had 
just  witnessed  was  baptism,  they  had  never  been  bap 
tized,  he  hastened  to  her  side,  and  on  their  way  home 
exerted  all  his  powers  of  raillery  to  drive  this  new  con 
ception  from  her  mind. 

As  for  himself,  he  had  never  had  a  serious  thought 
upon  the  question.  He  had  been  told  that  he  was  bap 
tized  in  his  infancy,  and  took  it  for  granted  that  all  was 
right.  He  had  very  serious  doubts'  about  his  ever  having 
been  converted,  but  never  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  whether 
he  had  been  baptized.  When  he  listened  to  the  religious 
conversation  of  some  of  his  friends,  and  especially  of  the 
young  lady  of  whom  we  are  speaking,  he  heard  many 
expressions,  which,  to  him,  were  meaningless,  and  seemed 
almost  fanatical.  They  talked  of  sorrows  which  he  had 
never  felt ;  of  joys,  the  source  of  which  he  could  not 
understand  ;  and  strangest  of  all,  to  him,  appeared  that 
habitual  subjection  to  the  Master's  will,  which  led  them 
to  ask  so  constantly,  and  so  earnestly,  not  what  was  de 
sirable  to  themselves  or  agreeable  to  those  about  them, 
but  what  was  required  by  the  command  of  Christ. 

That  one  should  do  this,  or  that,  under  the  conviction 
that  to  refuse  or  neglect  to  do  so  would  endanger  their 
soul's  salvation,  he  could  easily  understand ;  but  how 
any  one  could  attach  much  importance  to  any  act  not 
absolutely  essential  to  obtain  eternal  life,  was  to  his  mind 
an  unfathomable  mystery.  He  had  himself  determined 
to  secure  his  own  soul's  salvation  at  any  cost,  and  if  he 


14  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

had  believed  that  immersion  would  insure  salvation,  he 
would  have  been  immersed  a  hundred  times,  had  so  much 
been  required.  But  thinking  it  as  easy  to  get  to  heaven 
without,  as  with  it,  the  whole  business  of  baptism  seemed 
to  him  as  of  the  slightest  imaginable  consequence. 

"  What  difference  does  it  make  to  you,  Miss  Ernest," 
said  he,  "whether  you  have  been  baptized  or  not? 
Baptism  is  not  essential  to  salvation." 

"  True,"  she  replied  ;  "but  if  my  Saviour  commanded 
me  to  be  baptized,  and  I  have  never  done  it,  I  have  not 
obeyed  him.  I  must,  so  far  as  I  can,  keep  all  his  com 
mandments." 

"  But  who  of  us  ever  does  this  ?  I  am  sure  I  have 
not  kept  them  all.  I  am  not  certain  that  I  know  what 
they  all  are.  If  our  salvation  depended  on  perfect  obe 
dience  to  all  his  commandments,  I  doubt  if  any  body 
would  be  saved  but  you.  You  are  the  only  person  I 
ever  knew  who  had  no  faults." 

"  Oh !  Mr.  Percy,  do  not  trifle  with  such  a  subject. 
It  is  not  a  matter  of  jesting.  I  do  not  perfectly  obey. 
I  wish  I  could.  I  am  grieved  at  heart  day  after  day  to 
see  how  far  I  fall  short  of  his  requirements.  Oh,  no. 
I  do  not  hope  or  seek  for  salvation  by  my  obedience. 
If  I  am  ever  saved,  it  will  be  by  boundless  mercy  freely 
forgiving  me.  But  then,  if  I  love  my  Saviour,  how  can 
I  wilfully  refuse  obedience  to  his  requirements  ?  I  do 
not  obey  to  secure  heaven  by  my  obedience,  but  to  please 
him  who  died  to  make  it  possible  for  a  poor  lost  sinner 
like  me  ever  to  enter  heaven.  I  think  I  would  endeavor 
to  do  his  will,  even  if  there  were  no  heaven  and  no  hell." 

Mr.  Percy  did  not  understand  this.  If  he  had  been 
convinced  that  there  Was  no  heaven  and  no  hell,  he  felt 
quite  sure  that  all  the  rites,  and  rules,  and  ceremonies 
of  religion  would  give  him  very  little  trouble.  It  was 
only  in  order  to  save  his  soul  that  he  meddled  with  re- 


DOUBTS   INCREASING.  15 

ligion  at  all ;  and  all  that  could  be  dispensed  with,  with 
out  endangering  his  own  final  salvation,  he  regarded  as 
of  very  little  consequence.  He  read  some  portion  of 
the  Scriptures  almost  every  day  (when  business  was  not 
too  pressing).  He  said  over  a  form  of  prayer;  and 
sometimes  went  to  the  communion  table,  because  he 
regarded  these  as  religious  duties,  in  the  performance 
of  which,  and  by  leading  a  moral  life,  he  had  some  in 
distinct  conception  that  he  was  working  out  for  himself 
eternal  salvation.  Take  away  this  one  object,  and  he 
had  no  further  use  for  religion,  or  religious  ordinances. 

"I  know,"  said  he,  "that  you  are  a  more  devoted 
Christian  than  I  ever  hope  to  be,  but  you  surely  cannot 
regard  baptism  as  any  part  of  religion.  It  is  a  mere 
form.  A  simple  ceremony.  Only  an  outward  act  of 
the  body  not  affecting  the  heart  or  the  mind.  Why  even 
the  Baptists  themselves,  though  they  talk  so  much  about 
it,  and  attach  so  much  importance  to  it,  admit  that  true 
believers  can  be  saved  without  it." 

"  That  is  not  the  question  in  my  mind,  Mr.  Percy.  I 
do  not  ask  whether  it  is  essential  to  salvation,  but  whether 
it  is  commanded  in  the  Word  of  God.  I  do  not  feel  at 
liberty  to  sin  as  much  as  I  can,  without  abandoning  the 
hope  that  God  will  finally  forgive  me.  I  cannot  think 
of  following  my  Saviour  as  far  off  as  I  can,  without 
resigning  my  hopes  of  heaven.  Why  should  I  venture 
as  near  the  verge  of  hell  as  I  can  go  without  falling  in  ? 
My  Saviour  died  upon  the  cross  for  my  salvation.  I 
trust  in  HIM  to  save  me.  But  he  says,  '  If  ye  love  me, 
keep  my  commandments' — not  this  one  or  that  one,  but 
all  his  commandments.  How  can  I  pretend  to  love,  if  I 
do  not  obey  him  ?  If  he  commands  me  to  be  baptized, 
and  I  have  not  done  it,  I  must  do  it  yet.  And  if  that 
which  we  saw  at  the  river  was  baptism,  then  I  have 
never  been  baptized." 


16  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

"And  so  you  think  that  all  the  learned  world  are 
wrong,  and  this  shoemaker,  turned  preacher,  is  right ; 
that  our  parents  are  no  better  than  heathens,  and  a 
young  lady  of  eighteen  is  bound  to  teach  them  their 
duty,  and  set  them  a  good  example.  Really  it  will  be  a 
feast  to  the  poor  Baptists  to  know  what  a  triumph  they 
have  gained.  It  will  be  considered  quite  respectable  to 
be  immersed  after  Miss  Theodosia  Ernest  has  gone  into 
the  water." 

"  Oh,  Mr.  Percy,"  said  the  young  lady  (and  her  eyes 
were  filled  with  tears),  "  how  can  you  talk  thus  lightly 
of  an  ordinance  of  Jesus  Christ  ?  Was  it  not  respect 
able  to  be  immersed  after  the  glorious  Son  of  God  had 
gone  into  the  water  ?  If  my  dear  Redeemer  was  im 
mersed,  and  requires  it  of  me,  I  am  sure  I  need  not 
hesitate  to  associate  with  those  who  follow  his  example 
and  obey  his  commandments,  even  though  they  should 
be  poor,  and  ignorant,  and  ungenteel." 

"  Forgive  me,  Miss  Ernest,  I  did  not  intend  to  offend 
you ;  but  really  the  idea  did  appear  exceedingly  ridicu 
lous  to  me,  that  a  young  lady  who  had  never  spent  a 
single  month  in  the  exclusive  study  of  theology,  should 
set  herself  up  so  suddenly  as  a  teacher  of  Doctors  of 
Divinity.  If  sprinkling  were  not  baptism,  we  surely 
have  talent,  and  •  piety,  and  learning  enough  in  our 
church  to  have  discovered  the  error  and  abandoned  the 
practice  long  ago.  But  pardon  me.  I  will  not  say  one 
word  to  dissuade  you  from  an  investigation  of  the  sub 
ject.  And  I  am  very  sure,  when  you  have  studied  it 
carefully,  you  will  be  more  thoroughly  convinced  than 
ever  before  of  the  truth  of  our  doctrines,  and  the  cor 
rectness  of  our  practice.  If  you  will  permit,  I  will  assist 
you  in  the  examination ;  for  I  wish  to  look  into  the 
subject  a  little  to  fortify  my  own  mind  with  some  argu 
ments  against  these  new  comers,  as  I  understand  there 


DOUBTS    INCREASING.  IT 

are  several  others  of  our  members  who  are  almost  as 
nearly  convinced  that  they  have  never  been  baptized  as 
you  are,  and  I  expect  to  be  obliged  to  have  an  occa 
sional  discussion,  in  a  quiet  way." 

"  Oh,  yes.  I  shall  be  so  happy  to  have  your  assist 
ance.  You  are  so  much  more  capable  of  eliciting  the 
truth  than  I  am.  When  shall  we  begin  ?" 

"  To-night,  if  you  please.  I  will  call  in  after  supper, 
and  we  will  read  over  the  testimony." 

They  parted  at  her  mother's  door.  He  went  to  his 
office,  revolving  in  his  mind  the  arguments  that  would 
be  most  likely  to  satisfy  her  doubts.  She  retired  to  her 
closet  and  poured  out  her  heart  to  God  in  earnest  prayer 
for  wisdom  to  know,  and  strength  to  do  all  her  Heavenly 
Master's  will,  whatever  it  might  be  ;  and  before  she  rose 
from  her  knees,  had  been  enabled  to  resolve,  with  full 
determination  of  purpose,  to  obey  the  commandment, 
even  though  it  caused  the  loss  of  all  things  for  Christ. 
The  only  question  in  her  heart  was  now,  "  Lord,  what 
wilt  thou  have  me  to  do  ?" 

True  to  his  promise,  Mr.  Percy  came  in  soon  after 
supper,  anticipating  an  easy  victory  over  the  doubts  and 
difficulties  which  had  so  suddenly  suggested  themselves 
to  the  mind  of  his  intended  bride.  He'  could  not  help 
admiring  her  more,  and  loving  her  better,  for  that  inde 
pendence  of  thought  and  conscientious  regard  for  right, 
which  made  the  discussion  necessary ;  and  it  gratified 
his  vanity  to  think  how  fine  a  field  he  should  have  to 
display  those  powers  of  argument  which  he  had  sedu 
lously  cultivated  for  the  advantage  of  his  professional 
pursuits. 
'  How  he  succeeded  will  J>e  seen  in  the  next  chapter. 


THE  FIRST  NIGHT'S  STUDY. 

THE    BOOK    OP    TESTIMONY. 
THE   QUESTION  STATED. 

MEANING  OF  THE  WORD  BAPTIZE  AS   SETTLED  BY  CHRIST 
HIMSELF. 

YALTJE     OF     LEXICONS. 

A  MOTHER'S  ARGUMENTS, 
THE      DAUGHTER'S     ANSWEK. 


FIEST   EIGHT'S    STUDY. 

OW,  Miss  Theodosia,"  said  he,  "  let  us  begin 
by  examining  the  witnesses.  When  we  have 
collected  all  the  testimony,  we  shall  be  able  to 
sum  up  on  the  case,  and  you  shall  bring  in 
the  verdict." 

"  That  is  right,"  said  she,  with  a  smile,  the 
first  that  had  illumined  her  face  since  she  stood  by  the 
water.  '"To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony ;  if  they 
speak  not  according  to  this  word,  it  is  because  there  is 
no  light  in  them.'  Here  (may  it  please  the  court)  is 
the  record,"  handing  him  a  well-worn  copy  of  the  New 
Testament. 

"  Well,  how  are  we  to  get  at  the  point  about  which 
we  are  at  issue  ?  It  is  agreed,  I  believe,  that  Jesus 
Christ  commanded  his  disciples,  in  all  ages,  to  be  bap 
tized." 

"Yes,  sir,  I  so  understand  it." 

"  Then  it  would  seem  that  our  question  is  a  very 
simple  one.  It  is,  whether  you  and  I,  and  others  who, 
like  us,  have  been  sprinkled  in  their  infancy,  have  ever 
been  baptized  ?  In  other  words,  7s  the  sprinkling  of 
infants,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
the  baptism  ivhich  is  required  in  this  book?" 

"  That  is  the  question,"  she  replied.  "  I  merely  want 
to  know  if  I  was  ever  baptized.  I  was  sprinkled  in  the 
church.  That  lady,  to-day,  was  immersed  into  the 
river.  If  she  was  baptized,  /  was  not.  That  is  the 
point.  There  is  but  one  baptism.  Which  is  it?  the 
sprinkling  or  the  dipping?" 

(21) 


22  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

"  Oh,  if  that  is  all,  we  can  soon  settle  the  question. 
Sprinkling  and  pouring  and  dipping  are  all  baptism. 
Baptism  is  the  application  of  water  as  a  religious  ordi 
nance.  It  don't  matter  as  to  the  mode  of  application. 
It  may  be  done  one  way  or  another,  so  that  it  is  done 
with  the  right  design.  I  see  from  what  your  difficulty 
has  arisen.  You  have  misapprehended  the  nature  of  the 
word  baptize.  You  have  considered  it  a  specific,  rather 
than  a  generic  term." 

"  I  don't  know,  Mr.  Percy,  whether  I  quite  compre 
hend  you.  My  difficulty  arose  from  a  conviction  that 
the  baptism,  which  w"e  witnessed  to-day,  was  just  such  a 
one  as  is  described  in  the  Scriptures,  where  they  went 
down  into  the  water  and  came  up  out  of  the  water — 
whereas  my  baptism  had  nothing  about  it  that  at  all  re 
sembled  the  scriptural  pattern.  Please  don't  try  to 
mystify  the  subject,  but  let  us  see  which  was  the  real 
baptism." 

"  I  did  not  design  to  mystify  the  subject,  but  to  bring 
it  into  a  clearer  light.  The  meaning  expressed  by  some 
words,  is  rather  a  result  than  an  act.  If  I  say  to  my 
servant,  go  down  to  the  office,  he  may  run  there,  or  walk 
there,  or  ride  there,  and  he  obeys  me,  equally,  which 
ever  he  does — so  that  he  gets  there,  it  is  all  I  require 
of  him.  Go,  then,  is  a  generic  or  general  word,  includ 
ing  a  possible  variety  of  acts.  If  I  say  to  him,  run 
down  to  the  office,  he  does  not  obey  unless  he  goes  in 
this  specified  manner.  So  we  call  run  a  specific  term. 
That  is  very  plain,  is  it  not  ?" 

"  Certainly,  Mr.  Percy  ;  I  comprehend  that." 

"  Well,  then,  I  say  that  baptize  is  a  generic  term. 
Jesus  Christ  said,  baptize  all  nations.  He  does  not  say 
whether  you  shall  do  it  by  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  or 
dipping ;  so  that  you  attain  the  end  proposed,  you  may 
do  it  as  you  please.  If  he  had  said,  sprinkle  all  nations ; 


FIRST  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  23 

that  is  specific,  and  his  ministers  must  have  sprinkled. 
If  he  had  said  pour  upon  them  with  water,  that  is  a 
specific  act,  and  they  must  all  have  poured.  If  he  had 
said,  dip  them  in  water,  then  they  must  all  have  dipped. 
The  word  would  have  required  it.  But  he  used  the 
general  term  baptize,  which  signifies  any  application  of 
water  as  a  religious  ordinance,  and  of  course  it  does  not 
matter  as  to  the  mode.  You  may  take  your  choice." 

"  But  I  should,  even  in  that  case,"  said  she,  "  feel  in 
clined  to  choose  the  same  mode  that  HE  did,  and  which 
the  early  disciples  did.  There  must  have  been  some 
reason  for  his  preference.  But  how  do  you  determine 
that  the  word  baptize  is  a  generic  term,  as  you  call  it — 
having  three  or  four  different  meanings  ?" 

"  Simply  by  reference  to  the  dictionary.  Look  at 
Webster.  He  is  good  authority ;  is  he  not.  He  defines 
baptism  to  be  the  application  of  water  as  a  religious 
ordinance.  What  more  do  you  want  ?" 

"  But,  Mr.  Percy,"  said  Edwin,  who  had  been  a  silent, 
but  very  attentive  listener,  "  the  Baptist  preacher  told 
Mr.  Anxious,  the  other  day,  that  baptize  and  baptism 
were  not  English  words  at  all,  but  the  Greek  words 
baptizo  and  baptismos,  transferred  into  the  English 
Bible  and  not  translated.  He  said  that  King  James 
would  not  permit  the  translators  to  translate  all  the 
words,  for  fear  of  disturbing  the  faith  and  practice  of 
the  church  of  England,  and  so  they  just  kept  the  Greek 
word — but  if  they  had  translated  it  at  all,  it  must  have 
read  dip  or  immerse  instead  of  baptize." 

"  Very  well,  Edwin,  but  it  is  not  likely  that  the  Bap 
tist  preacher  is  much  wiser  than  Presbyterian  preachers, 
or  Methodist  preachers,  or  Episcopal  preachers.  If  dip 
had  been  the  necessary,  or  even  the  common  meaning 
of  the  word,  it  is  very  improbable  that  it  would  have 
remained  for  this  unlearned  and  obscure  sect  to  have 


24  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

discovered  it.  Such  statements  may  do  very  well  to 
delude  their  simple  followers,  but  they  cannot  be  ex 
pected  to  impose  upon  the  educated  world." 

"  But,  Mr.  Percy,  I  have  looked  up  the  words  in  my 
Greek  Lexicon,  and  I  find  it  is  just  as  he  said — Baptizo 
does  mean  to  immerse.  Baptismos  does  mean  immer 
sion." 

"  Oh,  as  to  that,  I  suppose  you  got  hold  of  a  Baptist 
Lexicon." 

"  Well,  here  it  is ;  Donegon's  Greek  Lexicon.  You 
can  look  for  yourself." 

Mr.  Percy  (who,  if  he  was  not  a  thorough  Greek 
scholar,  yet  knew  enough  of  the  language  to  read  it 
readily,)  glanced  at  the  word  where  Edwin  had  marked 
it,  and  ran  his  eye  along  the  cognate  words. 

"Baptizo — To  immerse  repeatedly  into  a  liquid,  to 
submerge,  to  soak  thoroughly,  to  saturate. 

"Baptisis  or  Baptismos,  immersion  ;  Baptisma,  an  <>b 
ject  immersed  ;  Baptistes,  one  who  immerses ;  Baptos, 
immersed,  dyed ;  Bapto,  to  dip,  to  plunge  into  water, 
etc." 

He  was  astonished.  The  thought  had  never  occurred 
to  him  before,  that  baptize  was  not  an  English,  but  a 
Greek  word ;  and  that  he  should  look  in  the  Greek 
Lexicon,  rather  than  Webster's  Dictionary,  to  ascertain 
its  real  meaning,  as  it  occurred  in  the  New  Testament. 
He  turned  to  the  title  page  and  preface  for  some  evi 
dence  that  this  was  a  Baptist  Lexicon,  but  learned  that 
it  was  published  under  the  supervision  of  some  of  the 
Faculty  of  the  Presbyterian  Theological  Seminary  at 
Princeton,  N.  J. ;  the  very  headquarters  of  orthodox 
Presbyterianism. 

Here  was  a  new  phase  of  the  subject.  He  could  only 
promise  to  look  into  this  point  more  particularly  the 
next  day ;  when,  he  said,  he  would  procure  several  dif- 


FIRST  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  25 

ferent  Lexicons,  by  different  authors,  and  compare  them 
with  each  other. 

"  In  the  meantime,"  said  Theodosia,  "  there  is  an  idea 
that  strikes  my  mind  very  forcibly ;  and  that  is,  that 
the  Saviour  himself  has  fixed,  by  his  own  act,  the  mean 
ing  of  the  word  as  he  employed  it." 

"How  so,  Miss  Theodosia?" 

"  Just  in  this  way ;  suppose  we  admit  that  it  had  a 
dozen  meanings  before  he  used  it,  and  that  in  other 
books  it  has  a  dozen  meanings  still,  yet  it  is  certain  that 
he  was  baptized.  Now,  in  HIS  BAPTISM  a  certain  act  was 
performed.  It  may  have  been  sprinkling,  pouring,  or 
dipping ;  but  whatever  it  was,  that  act  was  what  HE 
meant  by  baptism.  That  act  was  what  HE  commanded. 
His  disciples  must  so  have  understood  it.  He  gave  (if  I 
may  speak  so)  a  Divine  sanction  to  that  meaning.  And 
when  the  word  was  afterward  used  in  reference  to  his 
ordinance,  it  could  never  have  any  other.  If  he  was 
immersed,  then  the  question  is  decided ;  baptism  is  im 
mersion.  If  he  was  sprinkled,  baptism  is  sprinkling. 
If  he  was  poured  upon,  baptism  is  pouring.  So  we 
need  not  trouble  ourselves  about  the  Lexicons,  but  can 
get  all  our  information  from  the  Testament  itself." 

"  There  is  a  great  deal  of  force  in  that  suggestion, 
Miss  Theodosia.  It  is  a  pity  you  could  not  be  a  lawyer. 
(And  he  thought  what  a  partner  for  a  lawyer  she  would 
be,  and  how  happy  it  was  for  him  that  he  had  been  able 
to  persuade  her  to  promise  to  become  Mrs.  Percy.)  But 
while  it  is  true  that  we  may  find  all  the  testimony  that 
we  need  within  the  record,  yet  it  is  important  that  we 
get  at  the  real  meaning  of  the  record.  And  as  that  was 
written  iu  Greek,  I  see  no  reason  why  we  should  not 
seek  in  the  Greek  for  its  true  sense.  If  baptizo  means 
to  dip,  and  baptismos  means  a  dipping,  an  immersion, 
we  shall  be  obliged  to  rest  our  cause  upon  some  other 
3 


26  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

ground.     There  must,  however,  be  some  mistake  about 
this.     I  will  look  into  it  to-morrow." 

"I  do  not  care  what  the  Lexicons  say,"  rejoined 
Theodosia,  "  I  want  to  get  my  instructions  entirely  out 
of  the  word  of  God.  I  don't  wish  to  go  out  of  the 
'  record,'  as  you  lawyers  say." 

"  You  are  right  in  that ;  but  how  are  we  to  learn  the 
meaning  of  the  record  ?  If  any  document  is  brought 
into  court,  it  is  a  rule  of  law,  founded  on  common  sense, 
that  the  words  which  it  contains  are  to  be  understood 
in  their  most  common,  every-day  sense,  according  to 
the  usage  of  the  language  in  which'  they  are  written. 
Now  this  document,  the  New  Testament,  it  seems,  was 
written  in  Greek,  and  we  are  in  doubt  about  the  mean 
ing  of  one  of  the  words.  We  go  to  the  Lexicon,  not  for 
any  testimony  as  to  the  facts  of  the  case,  but  only  to 
learn  the  meaning  of  a  very  important  word  used  by  the 
witnesses.  Matthew  and  several  other  witnesses  depose 
that  Jesus  and  others  were  baptized.  If  they  were 
present  in  court,  we  would  ask  them  what  they  mean 
by  that  word,  baptize.  We  would  require  them  to 
describe,  in  other  language,  the  act  which  was  performed 
— to  tell  us  whether  it  was  a  sprinkling,  a  pouring,  or  a 
dipping.  But  as  we  cannot  bring  them  personally  into 
court,  we  must  ascertain  what  they  meant  in  the  best 
way  we  can ;  and  thai  is  by  a  careful  examination  of  the 
words  which  they  used,  and  the  meaning  that  would 
have  been  attached  to  them  at  the  time  they  used  them, 
by  the  people  to  whom  they  were  addressed.  Now  as 
the  documents  were  written  in  Greek,  of  course  they 
used  words  in  the  common  Greek  sense.  And  we  must 
ascertain  their  meaning  just  as  we  would  any  other 
Greek  word  in  any  other  Greek  author ;  and  that  is  by 
reference  to  the  lexicons  or  dictionaries  of  the  Greek 
language." 


FIRST  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  27 

"  Very  well,  Mr.  Percy ;  you  talk  like  a  judge.  But 
what  if  you  find  all  the  lexicons  agree  with  this  ?  What 
if  they  all  say  that  the  word  means  dip,  plunge, 
immerse?" 

"  Why  then,  we  must  either  admit  that  those  who  are 
said  to  have  been  baptized,  were  plunged,  dipped,  im 
mersed,  or  deny  the  correctness  of  the  Lexicons." 

"  But  if  you  deny  the  correctness  of  the  Lexicons  in 
regard  to  this  word,  what  confidence  can  we  have  in 
them  in  regard  to  other  words  ?  Brother  Edwin  is 
studying  Greek,  and  as  often  as  he  comes  to  a  word 
which  he  has  not  met  with  before,  he  finds  it  in  the  Lex 
icon,  and  so  learns  its  meaning ;  but  if  the  Lexicons  are 
wrong  in  this  word,  they  may  be  wrong  in  all.  Is  there 
no  appeal  from  the  authority  of  the  Lexicons  ?" 

"  Certainly,  we  may  do  in  Greek  as  we  do  every  day 
in  English  studies  ;  we  appeal  from  Johnson  to  Webster, 
and  from  Webster  to  Walker,  and  from  Walker  to  Wor 
cester.  If  one  does  not  suit  us  we  may  go  to  another." 

"  One  more  question.  Are  any  of  these  Lexicons 
Baptist  books,  made  for  the  purpose  of  teaching  Baptist 
sentiments  ?  If  so,  you  know  they  might  be  doubtful 
testimony." 

"  On  the  contrary,  the  Lexicons  are  made  by  classical 
scholars,  for  the  sole  purpose  of  aiding  students  in  the 
acquisition  of  the  Greek  language.  I  do  not  suppose 
any  one  of  them  was  made  with  any  reference  to  theo 
logical  questions,  and  probably  no  one  of  them  by  a 
person  connected  with  the  Baptist  denomination.  It  is 
certain  most  of  them  were  not,  and  if  they  all  agree 
in  regard  to  this  word,  it  must  be  conceded  that  they 
did  not  give  it  a  meaning  to  suit  their  personal  theo 
logical  views.  There  are  a  number  of  them  in  the  Col 
lege  library,  and  I  will  examine  them  all  to-morrow,  and 
tell  you  the  result." 


23  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

Mr.  Percy  went  Lack  to  his  office  studying  the  new 
phase  of  the  question  presented  in  the  meaning  of  the 
word.  "  If  baptizo  in  the  Greek  means  to  dip,  in  its  pri 
mary,  common,  e very-day  use,  then  Jesus  Christ  was 
dipped.  Then  every  time  the  record  says  a  person  was 
baptized,  it  expressly  says  he  was  dipped.  I  wonder 
if  it  can  possibly  be  so.  If  so,  why  have  our  wise  and 
talented  preachers  never  discovered  it  ?  or,  knowing  it, 
can  it  be  possible  that  they  have  systematically  con 
cealed  it?" 

Theodosia  retired  to  her  chamber,  where  she  spent  a 
few  moments  in  prayer  to  God  for  the  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and'  then  took  her  Testament  and  read  how 
they  were*  baptized  of  John  in  the  river  of  Jordan.  How 
Jesus,  after  he  was  baptized,  came  up  out  of  the  water. 
How  they  went  down  both  into  the  water,  both  Philip 
and  the  eunuch,  and  he  baptized  him,  and  when  they 
were  come  up  out  of  the  water,  the.  Spirit  of  the  Lord 
caught  away  Philip.  She  compared  these  statements 
with  what  she  had  seen  at  the  river,  and  did  not  need 
any  testimony  from  the  Lexicons  to  satisfy  her  that 
John's  baptism  and  Philip's  baptism  was  immersion. 
Why  else  did  they  go  into  the  water  ?  Why  else  was 
it  done  in  the  river  ?  Ministers  don't  go  into  the  river 
to  sprinkle  their  subjects  now-a-days.  There  was  no 
reason  for  doing  it  then.  Must  I  then  unite  with  this 
obscure  sect  and  be  immersed  ?  Must  I  break  away 
from  the  communion  that  I  love  so  dearly — from  all  my 
friends  and  relatives  ?  Must  I  part  from  my  dear  old 
pastor,  who  was,  under  God,  the  means  of  my  conver 
sion — who  has  so  often  counselled  me,  prayed  with  me 
and  for  me,  wept  over  me,  and  cherished  me  as  though 
I  had  been  his  own  child  ?  The  very  thought  was  ter 
rible.  She  threw  herself  on  her  bed  and  wept  aloud. 
Her  crying  brought  her  mother  to  her  side.  She 


FIRST    NIGHT'S   STUDY.  29 

kneeled  beside  the  bed,  took  the  poor  girl's  hand  in 
both  of  hers,  and  bade  her  try  to  banish  this  distressing 
subject  from  her  thoughts.  It  was* not  worth  while,  she 
said,  for  a  young  girl  like  her  to  set  up  her  own  opinions, 
or  even  to  entertain  doubts  in  opposition  to  her  minister 
aiid  others  who  had  spent  their  lives  in  the  study  of 
this  very  thing.  As  for  herself,  if  her  pastor,  Mr.  John 
son,  said  any  thing  was  in  the  Bible,  she  always  took  it 
for  granted  it  was  there.  He  had  more  time  to  look 
into  these  things  than  she  had.  It  was  his  business  to 
do  it ;  and  he  was  better  qualified  to  do  it  than  any  of 
his  people.  And  of  course,  if  sprinkling  was  not  true 
baptism,  he  would  never  have  practiced  it. 

"  But,  mother,"  sobbed  the  weeping  girl,  "  I  must  an 
swer  to  God,  and  not  to  pastor  Johnson.  Much  as  I  love 
him,  I  trust  I  love  my  Saviour  better ;  and  if  my  pastor 
says  one  thing,  and  Jesus  Christ  another,  Mr.  Johnson 
himself  has  often  told  us  to  obey  God  rather  than  man. 
I  have  no  choice;  I  must  obey  my  Saviour." 

"  Of  course  you  must,  my  child  ;  but  Mr.  Johnson 
knows  better  what  the  Saviour  commands  than  you  do. 
He  understands  all  about  these  questions.  And  he  will 
assure  you  that  you  have  been  properly  baptized.  I 
know  that  he  agrees  exactly  with  Dr.  Fisher,  who  bap 
tized  you,  as  you  yourself  well  remember." 

"  I  remember  that  he  sprinkled  a  little  water  in  my 
face,  mother ;  but  if  that  was  baptism  which  I  witnessed 
to-day,  he  certainly  did  not  baptize  me." 

"  Well,  my  dear,  try  and  compose  yourself,  and  go  to 
sleep ;  and  I  will  send  for  our  pastor  to  come  and  see 
you  to-morrow.  He  will  soon  satisfy  your  mind." 

"  I  hope  he  may,  and  I  will  try  to  sleep.  Good-night, 
mother." 


THE    SECOND    NIGHT'S    STUDY. 

IN  WHICH  THEODOSIA  IS  ASSISTED 

BY  MR.   PERCY,    THE   PASTOR,  AND    THE    SCHOOL-MASTER. 
PRESBYTERIAN  AUTHORITIES : 

MR.     BARNES; 

OR,  EXPLAINING  SCRIPTURE  BY  SCRIPTURE. 

THEODOSIA'S    OPINION    OP    THEOLOGICAL    VKITEBS. 

MORE    AUTHOpITIES: 

DR.  MCKNIGHT,  DR.  CHALMERS,  JOHN  CALVIN, 
PROF.  STEWART,  JOHN  WESLEY,  Ac. 


moiti  nv. 
oJ  •lixjjorj  ai  :tl 
£fe  soifcnurf  1£iovol  fiojja  jijiw  ofc  oJ  frff  yiu'  diufv/  J; 


TTNCTTJAL  to  his  promise,  Mr.  Percy  came  in 
soon  after  supper  on  the  next  evening,  and  found 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Johnson,  the  pastor  of  their  church, 
already  there.  He  had  called  early  to  take  a 
social  cup  of  tea,  having  learned  that  Theodosia 
was  "like  to  go  crazy  about  these  new-fangled 

Baptist  notions.". ,wf.f  ... ^  it^nio'^i  :'  irjdj    - 

He  did  not  think  she  looked  much  like  a  maniac, 
however,  though  there  was  a  deep  and  saddened  serious 
ness  upon  her  face.  Nor  did  she'  act  like  a  maniac,  for 
never  before  had  she  seemed  so  respectfully  affectionate 
to  him  and  to  her  mother. 

He  had  not  said  a  word  upon  the  subject  of  dispute, 
and  seemed  reluctant  to  approach  it ;  but  when  Mr. 
Percy  came  in,  it  could  no  longer  be  postponed. 

"I  am  very  glad  to  meet  you  here",  Mr.  Johnson," 
said  the  young  man.  "Miss  Theodosia  and  I  had  quite 
a,  discussion  yesterday  evening  on  the  subject  of  bap 
tism.  She  has  taken  a  fancy  that  she  has  never  been 
baptized ;  and  I  believe  that  I  nearly  exhausted  my 
logic  in  trying  to  convince  her  that  she  had.  I  hope 
your  arguments  will  be  more  effectual  than  mine." 

"Really,  my  children,  I  don't  know,"  said  the  old 
man,  "  what  I  may  be  able  to  do ;  I  have  never  studied 
these  controversies  much ;  I  think  it  is  better  to  live  in 
peace  and  let  every  one  enjoy  his  own  conscientious 
opinion.  These  discussions  are  apt  to  run  into  disputes 
and  quarrels,  and  often  occasion  a  great  deal  of  ill 

(33) 

' 


34  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

feeling.  I  have  known  them  to  divide  churches,  and 
even  families.  It  is  better  to  avoid  them." 

"  But  what  are  we  to  do  with  such  lovely  heretics  as 
this  ?"  said  the  young  man,  with  a  smile  and  a  sly  glance 
toward  her  mother.  "  She  must  be  satisfied  that  she 
has  been  baptized,  or  you  will  have  her  running  to  the 
school-house  next  Sunday  to  hear  that  uneducated 
Baptist  preacher,  and  ten  to  one,  she  will  ask  him  to  go 
down  into  the  water  and  baptize  her  according  to  the 
New  Testament  model.  She  says  she  wants  to  be  bap 
tized  as  Jesus  Christ  was,  and  that  was  in  the  river,  you 
know." 

"Oh,  as  to  that,"  rejoined  the  pastor,  "there  is  no 
evidence  that  Jesus  Christ  was  immersed  in  the  river  at 
all.  It  has  been  satisfactorily  proved  that  he  was 
sprinkled  or  poured  upon ;  and  it  is  very  certain  that 
sprinkling  was  practiced  by  the  apostles  and  early 
Christians." 

"  Oh,  I  am  so  glad  to  hear  you  say  that,"  replied  the 
young  lady.  "  You  don't  know  what  a  load  it  has  taken 
off  my  mind.  Do  tell  me  how  it  is  ascertained  that 
Christ  did  not  go  into  the  river,  and  what  evidence  there 
is  that  he  was  sprinkled,  and  it  was  sprinkling  which 
he  commanded.  You  can't  imagine  how  anxious  I  am 
to  know." 

"  Well,  I  don't  know  that  I  can  call  up  all  the  evi 
dence  just  at  this  time,  and  we  would  not  have  time  to 
go  over  it,  if  I  could ;  but  you  may  be  assured  that  there 
is  such  evidence,  and  that  of  the  most  satisfactory 
character,  or  else  all  the  learned  and  talented  theo 
logical  scholars  of  the  various  Pedobaptist  churches 
would  not  have  continued,  for  so  many  ages,  to  teach 
and  practice  it." 

"  Certainly,  I  have  no  doubt  the  evidence  exists,  since 
you  say  so  ;  but  can't  you  tell  me  what  it  is,  or  show  me 


SECOND  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  35 

where  to  find  it  ?  I  shall  never  be  able  to  rest  in  peace 
till  I  am  convinced  that  I  have  been  baptized.  And  if 
that  which  I  witnessed  at  the  river  yesterday  was  bap 
tism,  I  am  sure  I  never  was." 

"  Oh,  don't  be  so  confident,  my  daughter.  There  are 
more  modes  of  baptism  than  one.  That  was,  perhaps, 
one  mode  (though  of  that  I  have  some  doubt).  You 
were  baptized  by  another  mode.  That  may  have  been 
baptism.  Yours  certainly  was." 

"  Well,  do  please  prove  it  to  me  some  way,  Mr.  John 
son.  What  you  say  is  something  like  what  Mr.  Percy 
said  yesterday.  He  told  me  that  baptize  was  a  generic 
term,  expressing  rather  a  certain  result  than  any  spe 
cific  act.  I  think  that  was  the  idea,  was  it  not,  Mr. 
Percy  ?" 

"  Exactly ;  and  if  so,  I  leave  it  to  Mr.  Johnson  if  the 
manner  of  reaching  the  result  is  not  a  matter  of  indif 
ference." 

"  Certainly,"  said  the  pastor;  "  '  baptism  is  the  appli 
cation  of  water  as  a  religious  ordinance.'  It  does  not 
matter  about  the  quantity  of  water  or  the  mode  of 
applying  it." 

"  Yes ;  that  is  what  mother  said  yesterday.  And  we 
looked  in  Webster,  and  found  that  such  was,  indeed, 
the  present  English  use  of  the  word  baptize.  But  bro 
ther  says  baptize  is  a  Greek  word  slightly  modified,  and 
transferred  from  the  Greek  Testament  to  the  English. 
It  is  the  New  Testament  meaning  in  the  time  of  Christ, 
and  among  the  people  for  whom  the  Gospels  were  first 
written,  that  we  want,  not  the  meaning  that  it  has  ac 
quired  in  the  English  since  its  transfer  to  our  language." 

"  You  see,  pastor,  she  is  going  to  be  hard  to  satisfy. 
She  pleads  her  cause  like  a  lawyer." 

"  No,  no,  Mr.  Percy,  I  will  not  be  hard  to  satisfy.  I 
desire,  I  long,  I  pray  to  be  satisfied.  I  can  never  rest 


36  THEODOSIA   ERNEST, 

till  I  am  satisfied.  I  only  ask  for  the  evidence.  You 
said  yesterday  that  baptizo  was  a  generic  term  meaning 
to  sprinkle,  to  pour,  or :to  dip-,  but  we  found  it  in  the 
Lexicon,  and  it  proved  to  be  a  specific  term,  meaning 
only  to  dip.  Notaiword  was;  there  about  sprinkling  or 
pouring.  It  was  simply  and  only  dipping.  To-day,  Mr. 
Johnson*  tells  me  about  several  modes— but  they  are  not 
modes  of  dipping.  <  And  yet  if  the  Greek  word  baptisinos, 
baptism,  means  dipping,  then  they  must,  in  order  to  be 
modes  of  baptisiaay  be  modes  of  dipping.  But,  Mr. 
Percy,  you  have  not  yet  told  us  the  result  of  your 
examination  of  other  Lexicons."  -i  oil  -VB/rjyjBoy  bine 

"  We  can  make  nothing  out  of  them.  :1 ,4un;  .sorry  to 
say  they  all  agree  substantially  with  the:  .one  you  have 
in  the  house.  If  we  trust  to  them  we  must  grant  that 
the  word  means  /.primarily  aud  ordinarily  to  dip,  to 
plunge,  to  immerse.  .  Of  this  .there  is  no  doubt."  ,  uTjenr 

"  Then  I  am  more  perplexed  than  ever.  You  said 
yesterday  that  in  order  to  know  what  the  act  was  which 
the  disciples  performed  and  Christ  commanded,  we  must 
ascertain  the  precise  meaning  of  baptize,  as  they  em 
ployed  it  in  the  Greek  language.  You  have  examined  all 
the  Lexicons  (the  highest  authorities)  and  find  they  all 
agree  in  saying  it  was  dip,  plunge,  immerse.  You  ad 
mitted  3'esterday  that .  if  they  should  agree  in  this,  the 
question  was  settled.  If  they  said  baptize  meant  to  dip, 
and  bdptismos  a  dipping  or  immersion,  then  every  time 
we  read  that  one  was  baptized,  we  must  understand  that 
he  was  immersed,  I  thought  that  was  a  plain,  straight 
forward  case.  I  felt  that  I  could  understand  it.  Well, 
now  you  say  you  have  examined  carefully  the  other 
Lexicons,  and  they  all  agree  with  this.  Xo  one  says 
sprinkle,  no  one  says  pour— ^all  say  dip,  and  conse 
quently  the  Gospfll  says  that  Jesus  was  dipj>e,d  of  John 
in  the  river  of  Jordan.  But  then  our  pastor  s&ys  that 


SECOND  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  37 

he  has  evidence  that  Jesus  did  not  enter  the  river  at  all, 
and  that  he  was  sprinkled,  and  not  dipped.  Of  course 
he  would  not  say  it,  unless  it  was  so,  but  I  really  don't 
understand  how  it  can  be^so^inoa  no  I>IHS  ,«Ioq&oD  t«.f.i 

"I  have  some  curiosity  on  that  point  myself,"  said 
Mr.  Percy,  evidently  relieved  to  find  that  he  could  (for 
the  moment,  at  least),  take  the  other  side  of  the  ques 
tion.  "I  find  myself  in  a  very  close  place.  These 
Lexicons  have  killed  me.  I  don't  know  what  to  say.  I 
suppose,  of  course,  there  is  some  .way  to  get  around  the 
difficulty,  but  I  must  leave  it  to  our  pastor -to  point 
it  out.  For  my  part,  I  submit  the  case.": 

",  Really,"  said  Mr.  Johnson,  "the  question  never  pre 
sented  itself  to  me  in  just  this  light  before.  You  must 
give  me  a  little  time  to  consider  about  it.  And  in  the 
meantime, let  me  beg  of :  you  both  that  you  will  examine 
some  of  the  standard  writers,,  upon  the,  subject.  I  do 
not  think  you  have  done  this  yet,  r  What  have  you  in 
the  house  ?&ta  n^o  I  .ov-eaf  I  awhxf  .. 

"  Not  a  book  upon  the  subject,  except  it  be  the  Bible, 
and  I  don't  much  .care  to  read  any  other  till  we  have 
examined  that.  If  sprinkling  is  there,  it  ought  to  be 
so  plainly  taught  that  I  can  see  it  for  myself.  If  I  can't 
find  it,  I  will  always  doubt  if  it  is  there,"  rejoined  the 
young  lady.  -  oJ*  gasrrbrr/jf  sdi  yvsxf  uov 

"  True,  my  child,"  said  the  pastor ;  "  but  we  often  fail 
to  see  things  at  first  glance,  which  are  very  evident  when 
they  have  once  been  pointed  out,  and  our  attention  fixed 
upon  them.  This  is  the  advantage  of  using  proper 
helps  to  understand  the  Scriptures.  Those  not  familiar 
with  the  language  in  which  they  were  written,  and  with 
the  customs  and  manners  of  the  people  to  whom  they 
were  originally  addressed,  will  derive  great  assistance 
from  judicious  criticisms.  I  like,  myself,  always  to  read 
4 


38  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

a  commentary  on  every  chapter  that  I  attempt  to  under 
stand." 

"  Oh,  as  to  commentaries,  we  have  Barnes'  Notes  on 
the  Gospels,  and  on  some  of  the  Epistles.  And  we 
have  McKnight's  exposition  and  new  translation  of  the 
Epistles.  Uncle  Jones  admires  these  old  volumes  of 
McKnight's  very  much,  but  they  always  seemed  very 
dry  to  me.  I  love  Mr.  Barnes,  and  have  studied  his 
notes  in  Sunday-school  and  Bible  class  all  my  life." 

"  Mr.  Barnes  is  a  very  learned  and  eminent  divine," 
replied  the  pastor.  "  His  notes  have  attained  a  wide 
circulation,  and  won  for  him  an  enduring  reputation. 
You  cannot  follow  a  safer  guide.  Have  you  examined 
him  upon  the  subject  ?" 

"  I  suppose,"  said  she,  "  that  I  have  read  it  a  dozen 
times,  but  I  never  thought  any  thing  particularly  about 
it,  and  don't  recollect  a  word." 

"  Suppose,  then,  you  get  his  Notes,  and  let  us  look  at 
them  a  moment  before  I  leave.  I  can  stay  but  a  few 
minutes  longer." 

Edwin  had  found  the  volume  while  they  were  talking 
of  it,  and  now  handed  it  to  the  pastor. 

"  I  suppose  we  shall  find  it  here,  Matthew  iii.  6,  as 
this  is  the  place  where  the  word  baptize  first  occurs. 
Mr.  Percy,  will  you  have  the  kindness  to  read  it  aloud 
for  our  common  benefit  ?" 

Mr.  Percy  read :  "And  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jor 
dan,  confessing  their  sins."  "  The  word  baptize  signi 
fies,  originally,  to  tinge,  to  dye,  to  stain,  as  those  who 
dye  clothes.  It  here  means  to  cleanse  or  wash  any 
thing  by  the  application  of  water.  (See  note,  Mark 
vii.  4.) 

"  Washing  or  ablution  was  much  in  use  among  the 
Jews,  as  one  of  the  rites  of  their  religion.  It  was  not 
customary,  however,  to  baptize  those  who  were  converted 


SECOND  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  39 

to  the  Jewish  religion  until  after  the  Babylonish  cap 
tivity. 

"At  the  time  of  John,  and  for  some  time  previous, 
they  had  been  accustomed  to  administer  a  rite  of  bap 
tism  or  washing  to  those  who  became  proselytes  to  their 
religion,  that  is,  who  were  converted  from  being  Gen 
tiles."  *  *  *  "  John  found  this  custom  in  use,  and 
as  he  was  calling  the  Jews  to  a  new  dispensation,  to  a 
change  in  the  form  of  their  religion,  he  administered  this 
rite  of  baptiftn  or  washing  to  signify  the  cleansing  from 
their  sins,  and  adopting  the  new  dispensation,  or  the 
fitness  for  the  pure  reign  of  the  Messiah.  They  applied 
an  old  ordinance  to  a  new  purpose ;  as  it  was  used  by 
John  it  was  a  significant  rite  or  ceremony,  intended  to 
denote  the  putting  away  of  impurity,  and  a  purpose  to 
be  pure  in  heart  and  life." 

Mr.  Percy  stopped  reading,  and  looking  up  at  Mr. 
Johnson,  said,  "Pardon  me,  pastor,  but  if  Mr.  Barnes 
were  present  here  as  a  witness  in  this  case,  I  would  like 
to  ask  him  a  single  question  by  way  of  a  cross-examina 
tion.  He  says  that  '  Washing  or  ablution  was  much  in 
use  among  the  Jews  as  one  of  the  rites  of  their  religion,' 
and  yet  he  tells  us  that  baptism  was  not  in  use  till  after 
the  captivity.  Must  not  baptism  then  have  been  some 
thing  new  and  different  from  the  washing  or  ablution  ?" 

"And  I,"  said  Theodosia,  "would  like  to  ask  a  ques 
tion  too ;  perhaps  pastor  Johnson  can  answer  it  as  well 
as  Mr.  Barnes.  He  says,  when  they  received  a  convert 
from  the  Gentiles,  they  baptized  him ;  John  found  this 
rite  in  use,  and  merely  applied  an  old  ordinance  to  a 
new  purpose.  JSTow,  I  want  to  know  how  this  ordinance 
was  administered.  What  was  the  act  which  they  per 
formed  upon  the  proselyte  ?  Did  they  sprinkle  him,  or 
pour  upon  him,  or  was  he  immersed  ?  If  this  can  be 
ascertained,  it  will  of  course  determine  what  it  was  that 


40  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

John  did  when  he  baptized.    Can  you  tell  us,  Mr.  John 
son,  which  it  was  ?" 

"Yes,  my  child;  it  is  universally  conceded  that  the 
Jewish  proselyte  baptism  was  immersion.  I  dp  not 
know  that  this  has  ever  been  denied  by  any  writer  on 
either  side  of  this  controversy.  It  is  distinctly  stated 
to  hare  been  immersion  by  Dr.  Lightfoot,  Dr.  Adam 
Clarke,  Prof.  Stuart,  and  others,  who  have  espoused  pur 

tiMMsieteinij  •  .-.uah 

"  How  then  do  you  get  rid  of  the  difficulty  ?  If,  as 
Mr.  Barnes  says,  'John  applied  an  old  ordinance  to  a 
new  purpose,' and  that  old  ordinance  was. immersion, 
it,- as  absolutely  certain  that  John  immersed,  There  is 
not  room  for  even  the  shadow  of  a, doubt.''.  g^Y/  ii  mloL 

"It  would  seem  ;to  be  so,%  indeed,"  said  the  pastor. 
"  I  never  thought  of  it  just  in  that  light  before.  .  But 
though  it  is  admitted  by  all  that  the  proselyte  baptism 
was  immersion,  it  is  doubted  by  many  whether  it  ex 
isted  at  all  before  the  time  of  John.  Some  think  it 
originated  about  the  time  of  Christ,  and  that  the  Jews 
practised  it  in  imitation  of  John's  baptism."  .nolcr 

"  I  do  not  see,"  rejoined  Mr.  Percy, ."  how  it  caij  make 
the  slightest  difference  in  the  result  of  the  argument, 
whether  it  was  in  use  before  the  time  of  John,  or  was 
borrowed  from  him.  If  they  immersed  before  the  time 
of  John,  and  he  borrowed  his  rite  from  them,  of  course 
it  was  immersion  that  he  borrowed.  If  they  immersed 
after  the  time  of  John,  and  borrowed  their  rite  from 
him,  of  course  John  immersed,  or  they  could  not  have 
borrowed  immersion  from  him."  f[^s,. 

"  But  if  John  immersed,"  said  Theodosia,  "  then  Jesus 
was  immersed  by  John.  This  immersion  was  called  his 
baptism.  The  disciples  saw  it,  and  spake  of  it  as  such ;  and 
ever  afterward,  whenever  baptism  was  mentioned,  their 
minds  would  revert  to  this  act ;  and  so,  when  Jesus  said 


SECOND  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  41 

to  them,  '  Go  and  baptize,'  they  must  have  understood 
him  to  mean,  that  they  should  go  and  repeat  on  others 
the  rite  which  they  had  seen  performed  on  him.  And 
not  only  so,"  added  the  young  lady,  "  but  Christ's 
disciples  had  themselves  been  accustomed  to  practice 
the  same  baptism  under  his  own  eye.  If  John  im 
mersed,  they  had  not  only  witnessed  his  immersion  of 
Jesus,  but  they  had  themselves  immersed  hundreds,  if 
not  thousands,  under  the  personal  direction  of  Jesus 
himself." 

"  That  would  certainly  settle  the  question.  But 
where  did  you  make  that  discovery  ?"  asked  Mr.  Percy, 
increduously. 

"  Oh,  it  is  in  the  record,"  she  replied.  "  Here  is  the 
testimony,  John  iii.  22,  23 :  'After  these  things,  came 
Jesus  and  his  disciples  into  the  land  of  Judea,  and 
there  he  tarried  with  them,  and  baptized.  And  John 
also  was  baptizing  in  jEnon,  near  to  Salim,  because 
there  was  much  water  there ;  and  they  came,  and  were 
baptized.'  And  in  the  next  chapter  it  says  that  the 
'  Pharisees  heard  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized  more 
disciples  than  John.'  Now  John  baptized  and  Jesus 
baptized.  They  both  did  the  same  thing ;  that  is  as 
plain  as  words  can  make  it :  as  plain  as  though  it  said 
Jesus  walked,  and  John  also  walked ;  or  Jesus  talked, 
and  John  also  talked.  Whatever  it  was  that  John  did, 
Jesus  was  doing  the  same  thing.  If  John's  baptism 
was  immersion,  then  Jesus  and  his  disciples  were  im 
mersing,  and  they  immersed  more  than  John." 

"  That  is  really,"  said  Mr.  Percy,  "  a  complete  demon 
stration.  Don't  you  think  so,  Mr.  Johnson  ?" 

"  Well,  I  must  confess  it  looks  so  at  the  first  glance 
We  must  look  into  this  matter  another  time.  Let  us, 
for  the  present,  see  what  Mr.  Barnes  says  further. 


42  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

Please  read  on,  Mr.  Percy ;  I  have  not  much  more  time 
to  spare  this  evening." 

Mr.  Percy  read  on : 

"  The  Hebrew  word  (tabdl)  which  is  rendered  by  the 
[Greek]  word  baptize,  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament  in 
the  following  places : — Lev.  iv.  6 ;  xiv.  6,  51 ;  Num.  xix. 
18;  Ruth  ii.  14;  Ex.  xii.  22;  Deut.  xxxiii.  24;  Ezk. 
xxiii.  15 ;  Job  ix.  31 ;  Lev.  ix.  9 ;  1  Sam.  ix.  27  ^2  Kings 
v.  14 ;  viii.  15  ;  Gen.  xxxvii.  31 ;  Joshua  iii.  15.  It  occurs 
in  no  other  places ;  and  from  a  careful  examination  of 
these  passages,  its  meaning  among  the  Jews  is  to  be 
derived." 

"Oh,"  said  the  young  lady,  "that  is  what  I  like;  I 
like  to  find  the  meaning  in  the  Scriptures,  then  I  know 
I  can  rely  upon  it.  Just  wait  a  minjite,  Mr.  Percy,  if 
you  please,  till  I  can  get  my  Bible  and  hunt  out  those 
places,  and  see  how  it  reads.  If  it  reads  Crinkle,  then 
it  is  all  right — sprinkling  is  baptism  ;  if  it  reads  pour, 
then  pouring  is  baptism ;  if  it  reads  dip,  then  dipping  is 
baptism.  We  will  soon  see." 

"  Let  me  read  a  little  further,  Miss  Theodosia,  and 
perhaps  you  may  not  think  it  necessary  to  examine  the 
texts." 

She  had,  however,  got  her  Bible,  and  was  getting 
ready  to  turn  to  each  text  in  order,  when  he  resumed  as 
follows : 

"  From  these  passages,  it  will  be  seen  that  its  radical 
meaning  is  not  to  sprinkle  or  to  immerse.  It  is  to  dip. 
Commonly  for  the  purpose  of  sprinkling  or  for  some 
other  purpose." 

"  What  ?  Do  let  me  see  that.  Pardon  me,  pastor, 
but  what  does  the  good  man  mean?  It  is  not  to 
sprinkle ;  it  is  not  to  immerse ;  it  is  to  dip  !  Edwin, 
please  get  Webster's  Dictionary,  and  tell  us  the  differ 
ence  between  the  meaning  of  dip  and  immerse." 


SECOND  NIGHT'S  STUDY*.  43 

"  Here  it  is.  Immerse  is  to  plunge  into  a  fluid.  Dip 
is  to  plunge  any  thing  into  a  fluid,  and  instantly  take  it 
out  again." 

"  Why,  Mr.  Percy,  that  just  describes  the  act  of  bap 
tism  which  we  saw  at  the  river.  It  was  not  an  immer 
sion,  strictly  speaking,  but  a  dipping,  a  plunging  be 
neath  the  water,  and  a  raising  out  again.  '  It  is  not  to 
sprinkle  or  to  immerse ;  it  is  to  dip !  Commonly  for 
the  purpose  of  sprinkling,  or  for  some  other  purpose.' " 

"  What  are  you  laughing  at,  brother  Edwin  ?" 

"  I  was  only  thinking  how  a  preacher  would  look, 
dipping  a  man  '  for  the  purpose  of  sprinkling'  him.  But 
see !  there  goes  my  teacher,  and  I  believe  he  is  a  Bap 
tist.  At  any  rate  he  goes  to  all  their  meetings.  Let 
me  call  him  in ;  he  can  tell  us  something  more  about 
these  things." 

And  before  any  one  could  interfere,  he  had  run  to  the 
door  and  hailed  Mr.  Courtney. 

Seeing  this,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Johnson  arose,  and  remind 
ing  the  company  that  he  had  an  engagement  at  that 
hour,  promised  to  call  again  and  talk  over  the  matter 
more,  at  another  day,  and  took  his  leave,  passing  out 
just  as  the  teacher  was  coming  in. 

"  Mr.  Courtney,"  said  Mr.  Percy,  "  perhaps  you  can 
help  us  a  little.  We  were  just  looking  at  Barnes  on 
Baptism." 

"  I  did  not  know  he  had  ever  written  on  the  subject, 
except  some  very  singular  remarks  he  made  in  his  Notes 
on  the  third  chapter  of  Matthew." 

"  It  was  those  we  were  examining,  and  I  infer  that 
you  do  not  think  very  favorably  of  his  argument." 

"  I  think  he  makes  a  very  strong  argument  for  the 
Baptists." 

"How  so?" 

"  Simply  thus :  It  is  an  axiom  in  logic  as  well  as  in 


44  THEUL'OSIA    KKNEST. 

mathematics,  '  that  things  which  arc  equal  to  the  same 
thing,  arc  equal  to  one  another.'  Now  he  states  a  very 
remarkable  and  exceedingly  significant  fact,  when  he 
he  sa}'s  that  the  Hebrew  word  tabal  is  rendered  by  the 
word  baptize.  It  occurs,  he  says,  fifteen  times  in  the 
Hebrew  Bible.  Now  when  the  Jews  translated  their 
Scriptures  into  Greek,  whenever  they  came  to  this  word, 
they  rendered  it  baptize :  and  when  our  translators 
came  to  this  same  word,  they  rendered  it  by  the  English 
word  dip.  It  follows,  therefore,  since  dip  in  English 
and  baptize  in  Greek  are  both  equivalent  to  tabal  in 
Hebrew,  they  must  be  equivalent  to  each  other. 

"  Mr.  Barnes  says  further,  that  the  true  way  to  ascer 
tain  the  meaning  of  this  word  among  the  Jews,  is  to  ex 
amine  carefully  the  fifteen  places  where  it  occurs  in  the 
Old  Testament.  I  see,  Miss  Ernest,  that  you  have  the 
Bible  in  jrour  hand ;  suppose  you  turn  to  those  places, 
and  let  us  see  how  they  read.  It  will  not  take  more 
than  a  few  minutes  of  our  time." 

"  I  had  gotten  the  book  for  that  very  purpose,  sir.  I 
like  this  way  of  study,  comparing  Scripture  with  Scrip 
ture.  I  always  feel  better  satisfied  with  my  conclusions 
when  I  have  drawn  them  for  myself  directly  from  the 
Bible." 

"Well,  here  is  the  first  place,  Leviticus  iv.  6:  'And 
the  priest  shall  dip  his  finger  in  the  blood.' 

"  The  second,  Leviticxis  xiv.  6 :  'And  shall  dip  them 
into  the  blood  of  the  bird  that  was  killed  over  running 
water.' 

"  The  third,  Leviticus  xiv.  51 :  'And  dip  them  in  the 
blood  of  the  slain  bird  and  in  the  running  water.' 

"The  fourth,  Numbers  xix.  18:  'And  a  clean  person 
shall  take  hyssop,  and  dip  it  into  the  water.' 

"The  fifth,  Ruth  ii.  14:  'And  Boaz  said  unto  her  at 


SECOND  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  47 

meal  time,  come  thou  hither,  and  eat  of  the  bread,  and 
dip  thy  morsel  in  the  vinegar.' 

"  The  sixth,  Exodus  xii.  22 :  'And  ye  shall  take  a 
bunch  of  hyssop,  and  dip  it  in  the  blood.' 

"  The  seventh,  Deuteronomy  xxxiii.  24 :  'And  let  him 
dip  his  foot  in  oil.' 

"The  eighth,  Ezekiel  xxiii.  15:  'Exceeding  in  dyed 
attire. ' 

"  The  ninth,  Job  ix.  31 :  '  Yet  shalt  thou  plunge  me 
in  the  ditch.' 

"  The  tenth,  Leviticus  ix.  9 :  '  And  he  dipped  his 
finger  in  the  blood.' 

"  The  eleventh,  1  Samuel  xiv.  27  :  '  And  he  (Jonathan) 
put  forth  the  end  of  the  rod  that  was  in  his  hand,  and 
dipped  it  in  the  honey  comb.' 

"The  twelfth,  2  Kings  viii.  16:  'And  he  (Hazael) 
took  a  thick  cloth,  and  dipped  it  in  the  water,  and 
spread  it  on  his  face.' 

"The  thirteenth,  Joshua  iii.  15:  'The  feet  of  the 
priests  that  bare  the  ark  were  dipped  in  the  brim  of 
Jordan.' 

"  The  fourteenth,  2  Kings  v.  14:  '  And  he  went  down 
and  dipped  himself  seven  times  in  Jordan.' 

"  The  fifteenth,  Genesis  xxxvii.  31 :'  And  they  took 
Joseph's  coat,  and  killed  a  kid,  and  dipped  the  coat  in 
the  blood.' 

"  The  passage  in  the  2  Kings  v.  14,  is  very  remark 
able,  since  it  corresponds  precisely  in  the  Septuagint  to 
the  text  in  Matthew.  The  Septuagint  says  of  Naaman, 
Ebaptizato  en  to  Jordane.  Matthew  says  of  the  people 
baptized  by  John,  Ebaptisonto  en  to  Jordane.  Nobody 
has  ever  questioned  the  correctness  of  the  translation 
in  Kings.  He  dipped  himself  in  Jordan;  and  had 
Matthew  been  translated  by  the  same  rule,  it  must  have 
read,  they  were  dipped  by  John  in  Jordan. 


48  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

"  But  I  fear  this  subject  may  be  disagreeable  to  you. 
Mr.  Barnes,  I  know,  is  a  most  eminent  minister  of  your 
own  denomination,  and  I  ought  probably  to  have  avoided 
speaking  thus  in  your  presence." 

"  Oh,  no,  sir,"  said  the  young  lady ;  "  I  want  to  learn 
the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  on 
this  subject.  I  am  glad  to  learn  it  from  any  source,  and 
in  any  way.  Perhaps  you  can  assist  us  further ;  but  let 
us  see  what  further  Mr.  Barnes  has  to  say." 

Mr.  Percy  read<  again  : 

"In  none  of  these  cases  can  it  be  shown  that  the 
meaning  of  the  word  is  to  immerse  entirely.  But  in 
nearly  all  the  cases  the  notion  of  applying  the  water  to 
a  part  only  of  the  person  or  object,  though  it  was  by 

dipping,  is  necessarily  supposed It  cannot  be 

proved,  from  an  examination  of  the  passages  in  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments,  that  the  idea  of  a  complete  im 
mersion  ever  was  connected  with  the  word,  or  that  it 
ever  in  any  case  occurred." 

"  Stop,  Mr.  Percy,"  said  the  young  lady.  "  Pray  stop, 
and  let  me  think  a  moment.  Can  it  be  possible  that  a 
good  man,  a  pious  minister  of  Jesus  Christ,  could  dare 
to  trifle  thus  with  the  holy  Word  of  God  ?  Oh,  it  is 
wonderful !  I  cannot  understand  it !  He  said  just  now, 
that  the  meaning  of  the  word '  was  to  dip  for  the  purpose 
of  sprinkling,  or  for  some  other  purpose.'  To  dip  means 
to  plunge  any  thing  into  a  fluid,  and  immediately  take 
it  out  again.  To  immerse  means  merely  to  plunge  the 
object  in  the  fluid.  Whatever  is  dipped,  therefore,  is 
of  necessity  immersed,  to  the  same  extent  that  it  is 
dipped ;  and  yet  he  says  these  things  which  the  Word 
says  were  dipped,  were  none  of  them  entirely  immersed." 

"  Do  not  think  too  hardly  of  him,"  said  Mr.  Percy. 
"  An  advocate  who  has  a  bad  cause  to  sustain  (I  know 


SECOND  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  40 

from  experience),  is  sometimes  obliged  to  resort  to  just 
such  a  jumble,  to  cover  the  weak  points  of  his  argument." 

"Perhaps,"  said  Theodosia,  "it  might  be  excusable 
in  a  lawyer,  though  even  of  that  I  am  doubtful ;  but 
that  a  minister  of  the  holy  Word  of  Jesus  should  thus 
stoop  to '  darken  counsel  with  words  without  knowledge,' 
is  something  I  never  conceived  of  till  now." 

"  When  you  have  become  more  familiar  with  the  influ 
ence  which  passion  and  prejudice,  and  especially  early 
education  and  church  attachments,  exert  upon  the  minds 
of  even  the  wisest  and  best  of  men,"  said  Mr.  Courtney, 
"  these  things  will  not  appear  so  strange  to  you.  Mr. 
Barnes  doubtless  believes  that  sprinkling  is  baptism. 
He  was  taught  so  in  early  life,  and  has  for  many  years 
taught  others  so.  To  convince  him  of  the  contrary, 
would  now  be  almost  or  quite  impossible,  and  when  any 
text  of  Scripture  comes  in  opposition  to  this  opinion, 
he  can  hardly  help  perverting  or  misunderstanding  it. 
You  desired  to  know  the  true  meaning  of  the  word  bap 
tize,  as  it  was  used  in  our  Saviour's  time  among  the 
Jews ;  and  you  applied  to  him  for  information.  He 
told  you  very  properly  that  you  must  go  to  those  places 
where  it  occurs  in  the  original  of  their  own  Scriptures, 
and  pointed  out  to  you  the  fifteen  places,  which  he 
assures  you  are  the  only  places  in  which  it  occurs.  He 
has  thus  given  the  matter  into  your  own  hands.  You 
turn  to  the  places,  one  by  one,  and  find  that  in  fourteen 
out  of  the  fifteen  it  clearly  means  to  dip.  That  such  is 
the  case,  he  does  not  deny.  He  is  obliged  to  grant  that 
'  its  radical  meaning  is  to  dip.1  This,  now,  he  has  proved 
from  the  Scriptures  themselves.  But  this  overthrows 
his  sprinkling,  so  he  must  get  rid  of  its  force.  This  he 
undertakes  to  do — 1.  By  intimating  that  there  is  some 
important  difference  between  dipping  and  immersion. 
'It  is  not  sprinkling  nor  immersion,'  he  says;  'it  is 
5 


50  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

dipping.'  And  then  he  tries  to  confuse  the  matter  by 
mixing  in  the  object,  '  for  the  purpose  of  sprinkling,  or 
for  some  other  purpose,'  as  though  the  purpose  modified 
the  act  performed.  The  baptism  mentioned  in  these 
fourteen  places  was  equally  dipping,  whether  it  was 
performed  for  the  purpose  of  sprinkling,  as  when  the 
priest  dipped  the  hyssop  ;  or  for  the  purpose  of  smear 
ing,  as  when  the  priest  dipped  the  tip  of  his  finger  in 
oil ;  or  for  the  purpose  of  cleansing,  as  when  Naaman 
dipped  himself  in  Jordan ;  or  for  the  purpose  of  pollu 
tion,  as  when  Job  was  plunged  in  the  ditch  ;  or  merely 
for  the  purpose  of  wetting,  as  when  Ruth  dipped  her 
morsel,  or  Hazael  his  thick  cloth.  The  wetting,  the  de 
filing,  the  cleansing,  the  smearing,  were  not  the  baptism  ; 
they  were  not  the  dipping,  but  a  consequence  of  it.  The 
sprinkling  was  not  the  baptism,  the  dipping,  but  a  sub 
sequent  and  altogether  a  different  act.  Then  to  make 
'  confusion  worse  confounded,'  he  intimates  some  vast 
distinction  between  entire  immersion  and  dipping. 
These  things,  said  to  be  baptized  in  these  fourteen 
places,  he  can't  deny  were  dipped  ;  but  '  none  of  them,' 
he  says,  'were  entirely  immersed.'  But  the  extent  of 
the  immersion  does  not  affect  the  meaning  of  the  word. 
The  word  immersed  expressed  only  the  act  of  plunging 
the  object  into  the  fluid.  The  word  dip  expressed  this 
act,  and  the  additional  one  of  taking  it  out  again ;  and 
this,  he  said  and  proved,  was  the  Scriptural  meaning  of 
baptize.  As  far,  then,  as  they  were  baptized,  they  were 
dipped ;  and  as  far  as  they  were  dipped,  they  were  im 
mersed.  We  learn  the  extent  of  the  dipping  from  other 
words,  not  from  this  one.  If  Naaman  is  said  to  have 
dipped  himself,  or  Hazael  the  cloth,  there  is  not  the 
slightest  reason  to  doubt  that  the  whole  person  and  the 
whole  cloth  were  immersed.  If  Jonathan  dipped  the 
end  of  his  staff,  why  the  end  only  was  immersed.  It  was 


SECOND  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  51 

immersed,  however,  just  as  much  as  it  was  dipped  or 
baptized." 

"  But,"  said  Mr.  Percy,  "  what  will  you  do  with  the 
hyssop,  and  the  living  bird,  etc.,  that  were  to  be  bap 
tized  into  the  blood  of  the  slain  bird,  and  where  Mr. 
Barnes  says  it  is  clearly  impossible  that  they  all  should 
be  immersed  in  the  blood  of  the  single  bird." 

"  I  simply  say  that  they  could  be  immersed  in  it  as 
easily  as  they  could  be  dipped  in  it.  If  you  will  turn  to 
Leviticus  xiv.  6,  you  will  see  that  the  blood  of  the  slain 
bird  was  to  be  caught  over  running  water ;  and  as  it 
rested  on,  or  mixed  with  the  water,  these  things  could 
all  be  entirely  immersed,  if  need  be.  You  will  remem 
ber,  however,  that  in  common  language  the  whole  of  a 
thing  is  often  mentioned  when  a  part  is  only  meant.  I 
say,  for  instance,  that  I  dipped  my  pen  in  ink,  and  wrote 
a  line ;  you  do  not  understand  that  I  dipped  more  than 
the  point — enough  to  take  up  the  ink  to  write.  If  I  tell 
you  that  I  dipped  my  hair  brush  in  water,  and  smoothed 
my  hair,  you  do  not  understand  that  I  dipped  it  in, 
handle  and  all,  but  only  the  bristles.  So  only  enough 
of  the  cedar  wood,  and  hyssop,  and  scarlet,  etc.,  may 
have  been  dipped  to  take  up  enough  to  sprinkle  with  ; 
but  as  much  as  they  were  baptized,  so  much  were  they 
dipped  ;  and  so  far  as  they  were  dipped,  just  so  far  were 
they  immersed.  But  it  does  not  make  any  difference  to 
Mr.  Barnes  or  his  sprinkling  brethren,  whether  the  dip 
ping  was  partial  or  complete ;  for  they  do  not  dip  their 
subjects  of  baptism  at  all,  in  whole  or  in  part,  for  the 
purpose  of  sprinkling,  or  for  any  other  purpose ;  and, 
therefore,  if  the  Scriptural  meaning  of  the  word  baptize 
is  to  dip,  as  Mr.  Barnes  has  so  clearly  proved  by  Scrip 
ture  itself,  then  they  do  not  baptize  at  all. 

"  Oh,  yes,  I  see  now  how  it  was,"  said  Theodosia, 
"  when  Dr.  Fisher  performed  this  ceremony  upon  me. 


52  THEODOSIA    EHNEST. 

He  baptized  his  own  hand ;  for  he  dipped  that  in  the 
bowl,  but  he  only  sprinkled  me ;  and  therefore,  accord 
ing  to  the  showing  of  Mr.  Barnes  himself,  I  have  never 
been  baptized." 

"  Do  not  put  down  the  book  yet,"  said  Mr.  Courtney. 
"  Just  turn  to  Matthew  xx.«22,  and  you  will  find  that 
Mr.  Barnes  has  no  more  difficulty  than  the  greatest 
Baptist  in  the  land,  in  understanding  the  word  baptism 
to  signify  not  only  immersion,  but  complete  immersion, 
whenever  it  does  not  refer  to  the  ordinance. 

"'The  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with.'  On  this 
Mr.  B.  remarks  as  follows :  'Are  ye  able  to  suffer  with 
me  the  trials  and  pains  which  shall  come  upon  you  in 
endeavoring  to  build  up  my  kingdom  ?  Are  ye  able  to 
be  plunged  deep  in  afflictions  ?  to  have  sorrows  cover 
you  like  water,  and  to  be  sunk  beneath  calamities  as 
floods,  in  the  work  of  religion  ?  Afflictions  are  often 
expressed  by  being  sunk  in  the  floods  and  plunged  in 
the  deep  waters.'  (Ps.  lix.  2  ;  Isa.  xliii.  2  ;  Ps.  cxxiv. 
4,  5 ;  Sam.  iii.  54.) 

"  You  see  Mr.  Barnes  has  no  more  difficulty  than  the 
translators  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  giving  the  word  its 
true  meaning — to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  sink  beneath  the 
waters,  etc.,  when  it  does  not  refer  to  the  ordinance ; 
but  when  it  does,  all  is  confusion  and  mystery." 

"  I  begin  to  think,"  said  Theodosia,  "  that  theologi 
cal  writers  are  not  to  be  relied  upon  at  all.  And  I  feel 
more  than  ever  inclined  to  trust  to  the  Bible  alone,  and 
study  it  for  myself.  When  such  a  man  as  Mr.  Barnes 
can  be  so  far  blinded  by  education  and  prejudice  as  to 
come  so  near  the  truth  and  not  see  it — to  point  out  the 
way  toward  it  so  plainty,  and  yet  refuse  to  walk  in  it, 
and  endeavor  to  hide  it  from  others  by  such  a  strange 
medley  of  words,  I  have  no  further  use  for  any  book  on 
the  subject  but  the  word  of  God.  I  will  study  that ;  and 


SECOND  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  53 

it  shall  be  my  only  guide.  If  I  find  that  Jesus  was 
sprinkled  in  Jordan,  I  will  be  content.  If  I  find  that 
lie  was  poured  upon,  I  must  be  poured  upon.  If  I  find 
that  he  was  dipped,  then  I  must  be  dipped." 

"  Oh,  no,  Miss  Theodosia ;  you  are  decidedly  too 
hasty.  I  have  often  found  in  court,  that  a  witness 
whom  I  expected  to  testify  in  my  favor,  and  who  evi 
dently  desired  and  intended  to  do  so,  has  nevertheless, 
on  a  cross-examination,  given  such  testimony  as  was 
altogether  favorable  to  the  opposite  party.  But  I  did 
not  abandon  my  client,  and  give  up  my  suit.  I  sought 
for  other  witnesses.  Our  information  on  this  subject  is, 
as  yet,  very  limited.  There  are  other  sources  of  evi 
dence  ;  let  us  examine  them.  Something  may  yet  turn 
up  to  change  your  opinion  of  theological  writers.  Did 
you  not  say  you  had  McKnight  on  the  Epistles  in  the 
house  ?" 

"  Yes ;  and  uncle  Jones,  who  you  know  is  one  of  the 
Elders  in  our  church,  says  it  is  one  of  the  best,  if  not 
the  very  best  of  commentaries." 

"  Well,  let  us  see  what  he  says.  How  will  we  find  the 
place  ?" 

"Take  a  concordance,"  suggested  Edwin,  "and  look 
at  every  place  where  the  word  baptize  occurs." 

"  That  is  a  first-rate  idea.  Well,  here  is  the  first 
place.  Romans  vi.  4.  Buried  with  Christ  by  baptism. 
In  the  note  he  says  :  '  Christ's  baptism  was  not  the  bap 
tism  of  repentance,  for  he  never  committed  any  sin. 
But  he  submitted  to  be  baptized — that  is,  to  be  buried 
under  the  water  by  John,  and  to  be  raised  out  again — 
as  an  emblem  of  his  future  death  and  resurrection.  In 
like  manner,  the  baptism  of  believers  is  emblematical 
of  their  own  death,  burial,  and  resurrection ;  perhaps, 
also,  it  is  a  commemoration  of  Christ's  baptism.' ' 


54  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

"  Stop,  Mr.  Percy,  are  you  sure  you  are  not  reading 
falsely?" 

"Yes,  I  am  perfectly  certain.  Here  is  the  book,  you 
can  see  for  yourself." 

"  No ;  but  I  thought  you  must  be  playing  some  trick 
on  me.  At  any  rate,  McKnight  must  have  been  a  Bap 
tist.  No  one  who  believed  in,  and  practiced  sprinkling, 
could  have  written  in  that  way." 

"  Perhaps  he  was  a  Baptist.  Let  us  look  at  the  title 
page  and  preface,  and  see  who  and  what  he  was.  It 
appears  from  this,  that  James  McKnight,  D.D.,  was 
born  Sept.  17,  1*721.  Licensed  to  preach  by  the  Pres 
bytery  of  Irwine  of  the  Scotch  Presbyterian  church. 
Ordained  at  Maybole  in  1753.  Chosen  Moderator  of 
the  General  Assembty  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in 
1769,  which  position  he  held  for  more  than  twenty  years. 
This  brief  history  of  his  life,  prefixed  to  the  first  volume 
of  his  Notes,  informs  us  further,  that  he  spent  near 
thirty  years  of  his  life  in  preparing  these  Notes,  and 
'  that  the  whole  manuscript  was  written  over  and  over,  by 
his  own  hand,  no  less  than  fire  times.'  They  were  there 
fore  the  deliberate  and  carefully  expressed  opinions  of 
a  most  eminent  and  very  learned  Presbyterian  Doctor 
of  Divinity,  and  presiding  officer  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  in  the  country  where  he  lived.  Of  course  he 
cannot  be  suspected  of  any  bias  toward  the  obscure  and 
despised  sect  called  the  Baptists." 

"  Well,  read  on  then.  Theologians  are  mysterious 
men." 

"  That  is  all  he  says  on  this  verse.  But  here  is  verse 
5th.  '  Planted  together,'  etc. 

"  The  burying  of  Christ  and  of  believers,  first  in  the 
water  of  baptism,  and  afterward  in  the  earth,  is  fitly 
enough  compared  to  the  planting  of  seeds  in  the  earth, 


SECOND  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  55 

because  the  effect  in  both  cases  is  a  reviviscence  to  a 
state  of  greater  perfection.'  ' 

"  Surely,  he  must  consider  baptism  to  be  a  burial  in 
water.  But  perhaps  he  thinks  there  were  several  bap 
tisms,  and  that  dipping  was  one  form  or  mode,  while 
sprinkling  was  another." 

"  No,  for  here  is  his  note  on  Ephesians  iv.  5.  One 
Lord,  one  Faith,  one  Baptism. 

"  '  Ye  all,'  says  he,  '  serve  one  Lord,  and  all  have  the 
same  object  of  faith,  and  have  all  professed  that  faith 
by  the  same  form  of  baptism.'  " 

"  Has  he  any  thing  else  on  the  subject  ?" 

"  Yes,  here,  on  1  Cor.  x.  2,  'And  were  all  baptized  unto 
Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea.' 

" '  Because  the  Israelites,  by  being  hidden  from  the 
Egyptians  under  the  cloud,  and  by  passing  through  the 
Red  Sea,  were  made  to  declare  their  belief  in  the  Lord 
and  his  servant  Moses,  the  Apostle  very  properly  repre 
sents  them  as  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in 
the  sea.' 

"And  here  again — 1  Cor.  xv.  29 — '  Else  what  shall 
they  do  who  are  baptized  for  the  dead.' 

" '  Otherwise  what  shall  they  do  to  repair  their  loss 
who  are  immersed  in  sufferings  for  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead.' 

"And  here  again  —  Heb.  ix.  10  —  'Divers  washings 
(Baptismcs).' 

" '  With  nothing  but  meats,  and  drinks,  and  divers 
immersions,  and  ordinances  respecting  the  body.' 

"  One  more  place,  and  we  have  all  that  he  says  upon 
the  subject. 

"  1  Peter  iii.  21,  '  The  like  figure  whereunto  baptism 
doth  now  save  us,  etc.' 

"  The  water  of  baptism  is  here  called  the  anti-type 


56  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

of  the  water  of  the  flood,  because  the  flood  was  a  type 
or  emblem  of  baptism  in  three  particulars  : 

"  1.  'As  by  building  an  ark  and  entering  into  it,  Noah 
showed  strong  faith  in  the  promise  of  God,  concerning 
his  preservation,  by  the  very  water  which  was  to  destroy 
the  Antediluvians  for  their  sins.  So  by  giving  ourselves 
to  be  buried  in  the  water  of  baptism,  we  show  a  like 
faith  in  God's  promise,  that  though  we  die  and  are 
buried,  he"  will  save  us  from  death  and  the  punishment 
of  sin,  by  raising  us  up  from  the  dead  at  the  last  day.' 

"  2.  'As  the  preserving  of  Noah  alive  during  the  nine 
months  of  the  flood,  is  an  emblem  of  the  preservation 
of  the  souls  of  believers  while  in  the  state  of  the  dead, 
so  the  preserving  believers  alive  while  buried  in  the 
water  of  baptism,  is  a  prefiguration  of  the  same  event.' 

"  3.  'As  the  water  of  the  deluge  destroyed  the  wicked, 
but  preserved  Noah  by  bearing  up  the  ark,  in  which  he 
was  shut  up,  till  the  waters  were  assuaged,  and  he  went 
out  to  live  again  upon  the  earth ;  so  baptism  may  be 
said  to  destroy  [or  represent  the  destruction  of]  the 
wicked,  and  to  save  the  righteous,  as  it  prefigures  both 
these  events.  The  death  of  the  wicked  it  prefigures  by 
the  burial  of  the  baptized  person  in  the  water,  and  the 
salvation  of  the  righteous  by  the  raising  of  the  bap 
tized  person  out  of  the  water.'  " 

"  Well,  Mr.  Percy,"  said  Theodosia,  "  what  do  you 
make  of  this  witness  ?  Do  you  wish  to  cross-examine 
him,  or  ask  him  any  further  questions?" 

"  Yes,  I  would  like  to  ask  the  Rev.  Dr.  McKnight  if 
he  practiced  sprinkling  for  baptism ;  and  if  he  did,  upon 
what  grounds  he  could  sustain  a  practice  so  different 
from  his  own  exposition  of  the  teachings  of  the  Scrip 
ture." 

"As  Dr.  McKnight  has  not  answered  in  his  writings, 
and  is  not  present  in  person,  it  may  be  satisfactory," 


SECOND  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  57 

suggested  Mr.  Courtney,  "  to  inquire  of  some  other  rep 
resentative  of  the  same  church  establishment.  If  you 
have  Dr.  Chalmers'  Lectures  on  Romans,  you  will  find 
the  question  answered." 

"  Yes,  sister,  don't  you  know  mother  bought  Chal 
mers'  Lectures  only  the  other  day?  I  will  go  and  get 
the  book,"  said  Edwin. 

"Ah,  here  it  is — page  152;  Romans  vi.  4-7.  'The 
original  meaning  of  the  word  baptism,  is  immersion ; 
and,  though  we  regard  it  as  a  point  of  indifferency 
whether  the  ordinance  so  named  be  performed  in  this 
way  or  by  sprinkling,  yet  we  doubt  not  that  the  preva 
lent  style  of  the  administration,  in  the  apostle's  days, 
was  by  the  actual  submerging  of  the  whole  body  under 
water.  We  advert  to  this  for  the  purpose  of  throwing 
light  on  the  analogy  which  is  instituted  in  these  verses. 
Jesus  Christ,  by  death,  underwent  this  sort  of  baptism, 
even  immersion  under  the  surface  of  the  ground,  whence 
he  soon  emerged  again  by  his  resurrection.  We,  by 
being  baptized  into  his  death,  are  conceived  to  have 
made  a  similar  translation — in  the  act  of  descending 
under  the  water  of  baptism,  to  have  resigned  an  old 
life  ;  and  in  the  act  of  ascending,  to  emerge  into  a  second 
or  new  life.'  Here  we  have  a  distinct  avowal  of  the 
well-established  fact  that  the  meaning  of  the  word  bap 
tism  is  immersion,  and  that  the  practice  of  the  Apos 
tolic  church  was  conformable  to  this  truth.  But  in  the 
very  face  of  it  we  have  the  candid  declaration  '  that  we 
(Presbyterians)  regard  it  as  a  matter  of  indiflerency 
whether  the  ordinance  so  named  be  performed  in  this 
way  or  by  sprinkling.' ': 

"But,  Mr.  Courtney,  how  can  it  be  a  matter  of  'in 
differency?'  If  the  word  means  immersion,  then  im 
mersion  was  what  Christ  commanded — then  the  '  ordi 
nance  so-called'  is  '  immersion.'  How  can  immersion  be 


58  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

performed  by  sprinkling?  Really,  these  theologians 
are  a  strange,  mysterious  people.  I  cannot  compre 
hend  them.  Christ  commands  me  to  be  baptized — bap 
tism  means  immersion — then,  of  course,  if  he  meant 
&ny  thing,  he  meant  immersion.  But  these  great  and 
good  men  tell  me  it  is  a  matter  of  '  indifferency'  whether 
I  do  what  he  commanded,  or  something  else  altogether 
different  from  it." 

"  Pardon  me,  Miss  Theodosia ;  it  is  only  when  the 
theologians  are  in  error,  and  blinded  by  their  educa 
tional  prejudices,  or  attachment  to  their  church  forms 
and  dogmas,  that  they  are  so  unreasonable  and  so  mys 
terious." 

"  Yet  I  have  been  accustomed  to  think  they  could 
hardly  be  in  error  at  all.  I  have  taken  it  for  granted, 
until  yesterday,  that  what  the  ministers  of  our  church 
said  about  the  teachings  of  the  word  of  God,  was  all 
true,  as  a  matter  of  course.  I  can  hardly  believe  now 
that  it  is  not  so.  I  can't  understand  how  those,  who 
are  so  wise,  so  learned,  so  pious,  so  anxious  to  know  the 
truth,  and  who  spend  all  their  time  in  learning  and 
teaching  it,  can  be  wrong  ;  or  how  a  simple  girl  like  me, 
may  differ  from  them  and  yet  be  right.  I  am  afraid  to 
take  a  single  step  in  opposition  to  my  pastor's  teaching, 
though  I  see  clearly  (as  I  think)  that  I  shall  step  upon 
the  rock  of  God's  unfailing  truth  !  How  can  it  be,  that 
such  good  men  talk  one  way  and  act  another  ?  How  do 
they  try  to  justify  their  '  indifferency'  to  the  commands 
of  Christ?  They  give  some  reason,  do  they  not?" 

"  I  think  most  of  them  don't  trouble  themselves  on 
the  subject :  they  think  little,  and  care  little  about  it — 
not  deeming  it  essential  to  salvation.  When  they  do 
think  or  read  upon  the  subject,  it  is  in  order  to  quiet 
their  minds,  or  reply  to  an  opponent.  They  have  the 
practice  of  their  church,  received  by  tradition ;  they 


SECOND  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  59 

take  it  for  granted  it  is  right.  They  are  where  3-011 
were  a  day  or  two  since,  when  you  took  it  for  granted 
that  the  ministers  of  your  denomination  could  not  be 
wrong.  They  don't  think  their  church  can  be  wrong ; 
and  they  twist,  pervert,  and  torture  the  Scriptures,  as 
you  have  seen  Mr.  Barnes  do,  or  openly  set  aside  their 
teachings  as  a  matter  of  '  indifferency,'  as  we  have  seen 
Dr.  Chalmers  do,  in  order  to  continue  the  usage  of  the 
church." 

"But,"  asked  Theodosia,  "does  not  Dr.  Chalmers 
stand  alone  upon  this  point  of  '  indifferency  ?'  It  surely 
is  not  common  for  the  ministers  of  our  church  (who  in 
learning  and  piety  I  have  always  thought  had  no  supe 
riors  in  the  world)  to  speak  of  literal  obedience  to 
Christ's  commandments  as  a  matter  of  no  consequence. 
To  me  it  seems  to  border  upon  absolute  impiety,  almost 
upon  sacrilege.  I  am  in  a  maze  of  astonishment." 

"  If  you  will  continue  your  investigations  for  a  little  <\ 
time,  you  will  cease  to  be  astonished  at  almost  any  sort 
of  assertions  made  by  the  advocates  of  sprinkling," 
said  Mr.  Courtney.  "  You  will,  for  instance,  find  them 
admitting,  in  one  sentence,  that  immersion  was  submit 
ted  to  by  Christ,  and  practiced  by  the  Apostles ;  and 
in  another,  holding  it  up  to  the  reprobation  and  abhor 
rence  of  every  Christian  as  an  indecent  and  abominable 
rite.  But,  in  regard  to  your  question.  Dr.  Chalmers, 
so  far  from  standing  alone,  simply  echoes  the  sentiments 
of  Calvin,  the  founder  of  your  church,  and  others  of 
its  most  eminent  supporters.  '  It  is  of  no  consequence 
at  all,'  says  Calvin,  as  quoted  by  Prof.  Stuart,  'whether 
the  baptized  person  is  totally  immersed,  or  whether  he 
is  merely  sprinkled  by  an  affusion  of  water.  This 
should  be  a  matter  of  choice  to  the  churches  in  different 
regions,  although  the  word  baptize  signifies  to  immerse, 
and  the  rite  of  immersion  was  practiced  by  the  ancient 


60  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

church.'     '  To  this  opinion,'  says   Prof.   Stuart,  '  I  do 
most  fully  and  heartily  subscribe.'" 

"  Well,  T  declare !  these  Presbyterian  Doctors  of 
Divinity  are  the  most  mysterious  of  people  to  me. 
They  freely  admit  that  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  to 
immerse,  or  to  dip,  and  that  immersion  was  practiced 
by  the  first  churches — (and  of  course,  if  such  is  the 
meaning  of  the  word,  it  must  have  been  practiced  by 
the  first  churches,  as  they  could  not  misunderstand  the 
commandment).  Yet  they  tell  us  that  it  is  of  '  no  con 
sequence  at  all'  whether  we  obey  the  commandment  or 
not.  Do  the  other  denominations  opposed  to  the  Bap 
tist  occupy  the  same  position  ?" 

"I  cannot  answer  for  all,"  said  Mr.  Courtney;  "I 
can  for  some.  I  have  here  a  transcript  of  some  of  the 
writings  of  Mr.  John  Wesley,  who  was  the  founder  of 
the  Methodists,  the  most  numerous  of  the  Pedobaptist 
sects  in  this  country.  He  says,  in  his  notes  on  Romans 
yi.  4 — '  The  allusion  is  to  the  ancient  manner  of  bap 
tizing,  by  immersion.'  And  he  relates  in  his  journal, 
vol.  3,  page  20,  '  that  Mary  Welch,  aged  eleven  days, 
was  baptized  according  to  the  custom  of  the  first  church, 
and  the  rule  of  the  church  of  England,  by  immersion.' 

"  On  page  24  of  the  same  volume,  he  says — '  I  was 
asked  to  baptize  a  child  of  Mr.  Parker's,  second  bailiff 
of  Savannah  ;  but  Mrs.  Parker  told  me,  neither  Mr.  P. 
nor  I  will  conse'nt  to  its  being  dipped.  I  answered,  if 
you  certify  that  the  child  is  weakly,  it  will  suffice  (the 
Rubric  says)  to  pour  water  on  it.  She  replied  nay,  the 
child  is  not  weak,  but  I  am  resolved  it  shall  not  be  dip 
ped.  This  argument  I  could  not  confute,  so  I  went 
home,  and  the  child  was  baptized  by  another.'  " 

"  It  would  seem,  then,"  said  Theodosia,  "  that  Mr. 
Wesley  conformed  his  practice  to  his  belief.  He  be 
lieved  that  baptism  was  immersion,  and  refused  to  bap- 


SECOND  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  61 

tize  at  all  unless  he  could  do  it  according  to  the  word 
of  God.  I  honor  the  man  for  his  consistency." 

"  Still,"  said  Mr.  Percy,  "  it  does  not  seem  that  he 
was  influenced  by  the  word  of  God,  but  by  the  'Rubric.' 
The  word  of  God  makes  no  exception  in  favor  of  those 
who  may  be  certified  to  'be  weak,'  but  yet  on  the  au 
thority  of  'the  Rubric, "or  formula  of  the  church  of 
England,  Mr.  Wesley  was  perfectly  ready  to  dispense 
with  the  dipping,  and  employ  pouring,  if  the  parents 
would  only  certify." 

"  Moreover,"  added  Mr.  Courtney,  "  it  seems,  from 
his  conduct  afterward,  that  he  felt  as  much  at  liberty 
himself  to  change  the  ordinance  of  Christ,  AS  the  makers 
of  the  Rubric  had  done ;  for  when  he  organized  his 
societies,  and  gave  them  'the  Discipline'  as  their  or 
ganic  law,  he  directed  baptism  to  be  performed  by 
sprinkling  or  pouring,  if  the  parties  preferred  it. 

"And  though  Mr.  Wesley  once  refused  to  baptize  a 
person  at  all  unless  he  could  do  it  by  dipping,  '  accord 
ing  to  the  custom  of  the  first  church,'  or  under  a  certifi 
cate  of  weakness,  his  followers,  by  his  direction  and  by 
authority  of  his  Discipline,  employ  sprinkling  almost 
exclusively,  and  call  immersion  a  vulgar  and  indecent 
practice ;  although  they  will  sometimes  perform  it  to 
satisfy  a  weak  conscience,  rather  than  lose  a  member. 

"  Martin  Luther,  the  great  reformer  and  founder  of 
the  Lutheran  church,  evidently  entertained  the  same 
opinion  with  the  other  noted  Pedobaptists  we  have  been 
speaking  of.  After  speaking  of  baptism  as  a  symbol 
of  death  and  resurrection,  he  says,  '  On  this  account  I 
could  wish  that  such  as  are  to  be  baptized,  should  be 
completely  immersed  into  the  water,  according  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word  and  the  signification  of  the  ordi 
nance,  as  also,  without  doubt,  it  was  instituted  by  Christ.' 

Yet  Luther  is  the  father  of  a  sprinkling  church — the 
6 


62  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

Lutheran ;  and  whether  he  did  so  or  not,  it  is  evident 
that  his  followers,  like  Drs.  Chalmers  and  Calvin,  regard 
it  as  a  '  point  of  indilferency.'  " 

"  That  is  sufficient,  Mr.  CourtnejV'  replied  the  young 
lady  ;  "  I  merely  wish  to  know  if  the  other  denomi 
nations  were  guilty  of  the  same  inconsistency  with  our 
own." 

After  a  little  further  conversation,  Mr.  Percy  and  Mr. 
Courtney  took  their  leave. 

Mrs.  Ernest,  the  mother,  had,  during  the  time  of  this 
interview,  been  sitting  quietly  in  a  corner,  very  busily 
engaged  in  hemming  some  ruffles.  She  took  no  part  in 
the  discussion,  but  as  soon  as  the  gentlemen  were  gone, 
she  turned  to  Theodosia,  and  said — 

"  My  dear  child,  I  am  perfectly  astonished  at  your 
behaviour  this  evening." 

"  Why,  mother,"  said  the  young  lady,  in  amazement, 
"  what  have  I  done  ?  I  am  not  conscious  of  any  impro 
priety." 

"  Do  you  think,  then,  that  it  is  perfectly  proper  and  be 
coming  in  you  to  talk  as  you  did  this  evening  about  the 
good  and  eminent  clergymen  of  our  church  ?  It  made 
my  flesh  quake  and  my  heart  burn  to  hear  that  imperti 
nent  little  Baptist  pedagogue  accuse  such  a  man  as 
Dr.  Albert  Barnes  of  perverting  the  scriptures  and  mys 
tifying  the  truth.  I  wonder  if  he  thinks  a  learned  and 
pious  Presbyterian  minister,  like  Mr.  Barnes,  is  more 
likely  to  be  '  blinded  by  prejudice  and  passion'  than  an 
ignorant  Baptist  schoolmaster.  You  thought  I  was  not 
listening ;  but,  though  I  did  not  take  any  part  in  your 
conversation,  I  assure  you  I  heard  every  word  of  it,  and 
if  it  had  not  been  for  the  presence  of  Mr.  Percy,  I  do 
believe  I  would  have  been  tempted  to  order  the  fellow 
out  of  my  house.  How  could  you  be  so  destitute  of 
every  particle  of  self-respect,  and  of  all  regard  for  your 


SECOND  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  63 

own  church — the  church  of  your  mother  arid  your  grand 
parents,  in  which  you  was  born  and  raised,  as  to  permit 
a  man  to  talk  in  that  way  in  your  presence  ?  I  declare 
I  was  perfectly  ashamed  of  you  !  If  that  Mr.  Courtney 
ever  shows  his  face  in  my  house  again,  I  do  think  I  shall 
insult  him." 

"  Mother,  what  was  it  that  Mr.  Courtney  said  that 
was  so  unbecoming  and  offensive  ?  I  am  sure  he  seemed 
to  me  only  as  one  anxious  to  get  at  the  truth." 

"  Why !  did  he  not  say  that  our  preachers  perverted 
the  Scripture  ?  Did  not  he  say  that  they  set  aside  the 
commandments  of  Christ  as  matters  of  '  indifferency  V 
I  wonder  if  he  thinks  he  knows  more  about  the  Scrip 
tures  than  Dr.  Chalmers  or  Mr.  Barnes,  or  even  the 
weakest  preacher  in  our  church  ?  I  always  heard  that 
the  Baptists  were  an  ignorant,  bigoted,  and  intolerant 
sect,  and  I  believe  it  now  more  than  ever.  Just  to  think 
that—" 

"  But,  mother,  please  let  me  say  one  word.  Mr. 
Courtney  did,  indeed,  intimate  that  Mr.  Barnes  had 
mystified  and  perverted  the  Scripture,  but  did  he  not 
prove  it  before  he  said  it  ?  It  was  Mr.  Percy  who  read 
in  Mr.  Barnes'  notes  that  we  must  look  in  the  Old  Tes 
tament  at  those  fifteen  places,  to  learn  the  meaning  of 
the  word  baptize.  We  looked,  and  found  that  in  four 
teen  of  the  fifteen,  the  action  was  dipping,  and  in  none 
of  them  sprinkling  or  pouring.  It  was  Mr.  Percy 
who  read  that  '  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  not  to 
sprinkle  or  to  immerse,  but  it  is  to  dip  for  the  purpose 
of  sprinkling,  or  for  some  other  purpose.'  >  It  was  Mr. 
Percy  who  read  in  Dr.  Chalmers  that  '  we  (Presbyte 
rians)  consider  it  a  point  of  indifferency'  whether  the 
ordinance  of  Christ  is  performed  as  he  commanded,  or 
in  some  other  way.  Now,  if  Mr.  Barnes  does  prove  that 
the  word  means  '  to  dip,'  for  the  purpose  of  sprinkling, 


64  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

or  for  some  other  purpose,'  and  yet  tells  us  that  it  can 
be  done  by  pouring,  does  he  not  mystify  the  subject  by 
a  strange  medley  of  words  ?  AVas  it  so  very  wrong  in 
Mr.  Courtney  to  point  out  these  self-evident  prevarica 
tions  of  Mr.  Barnes,  or  the  openly  avowed  disregard  to 
the  commandment  of  Jesus  Christ  and  the  practice  of 
the  Apostolic  churches  in  Dr.  Chalmers  ? 

"  If  Presbyterians  are  guilty  of  such  inconsistencj^,  I 
am  sorry  for  it,  and  ashamed  of  it,  but  I  can't  help  seeing 
it  when  my  attention  is  directed  to  it ;  and  I  really  do 
not  see  how  it  could  have  been  becoming  in  me  to  get 
angry  with  those  who  were  so  kind  as  to  point  it  out  to 
me.  On  this  subject  I  feel  that  I  "would  be  willing  to 
learn  the  truth  even  from  an  infidel  or  an  idiot,  if  they 
could  aid  me." 

"  It  is  the  part  of  a  true  friend,"  said  the  mother,  "to 
hide  a  friend's  infirmities,  not  to  divulge  and  glory  in 
them.  And  even  if  our  ministers  have  done  and  said 
some  thoughtless  and  silly  things,  it  is  not  for  a  Pres 
byterian  like  you,  to  speak  of  them,  or  permit  others  to 
speak  of  them  so  contemptuously,  in  your  presence.  If 
you  have  no  spirit  of  resentment,  I'll  let  you  know  that 
I  have,  and  Mr.  Courtney  too,  if  he  comes  here  with 
any  more  of  his  Baptist  abuse  of  our  pious  and  learned 
ministers." 

"  But,  mother,  if  our  ministers  are  wrong  (as  being 
human  they  surely  may  be)  how  can  it  be  wrong  to 
point  out  their  errors,  and  guard  inquirers  after  truth 
from  falling  into  them  ?" 

"  I  don't  say,"  replied  the  mother,  "that  it  is  wrong 
to  point  out  any  trifling  errors,  which  they  may  have 
inadvertently  taught ;  provided  it  were-done  in  a  mild, 
gentlemanly,  courteous,  and  Christian  manner.  But  is 
it  kind,  is  it  courteous,  is  it  Christian-like,  to  accuse  a 
great  and  good  man  like  Mr.  Barnes,  of  torturing,  per- 


SECOND  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  G;~> 

verting,  and  mystifying  the  Word  of  God,  to  sustain 
some  church  dogma  or  church  practice  ?  Do  you  call 
that  gentlemanly  ?" 

"  My  dear  mother,  please  don't  be  so  angry  with  me  ;  I 
really  can't  see  why  we  should  not  call  things  by  their  real 
names.  And  I  must  confess  that  so  far  as  I  can  under 
stand  the  meaning  of  the  words,  Mr.  Barnes  does,  on 
this  subject,  mystify  and  pervert  the  language  of  Scrip 
ture,  and  Dr.  Chalmers  does  clearly  intimate  that  it  is 
no  matter  whether  we  do  what  Christ  commanded  in 
this  ordinance,  or  something  else — which  he  did  not 
comriraiid.  And  I  begin  to  fear  that  others  on  our 
side  of  this  controversy  are  in  the  same  predicament. 
Whether  those  on  the  other  side  are  not  equally  incon 
sistent,  I  have  yet  to  learn." 

"Well,  my  child,  I  don't  know  what  to  do  with  you. 
You  have  no  more  respect  for  the  opinions  of  the  learned 
and  excellent  ministers  of  our  church,  than  for  those  of 
the  most  ignorant  people." 

"  I  am  determined,  mother,  that  I  shall  never  trust 
any  more  to  the  mere  assertions  of  any  man,  or  set  of 
men,  except  those  holy  men  who  spake  as  they  were 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Whatever  I  can  find  for 
myself  clearly  put  down  in  The  Book,  that  I  will  believe. 
Henceforth,  the  Bible  is  my  only  guide,  and  I  will  my 
self  judge  of  its  meaning  for  myself." 

"  But,  my  child,  do  you,  can  you,  think  that  you  are 
as  competent  to  judge  of  the  true  interpretation  of  the 
Word  as  the  great  and  good  men  who  have  given  all 
their  lives  to  its  study  ?" 

"No,  mother;  but  how  if  these  great  and  good  men 
disagree?  Must  I  turn  Catholic,  and  so  secure  an 
infallible  priest  ?  If  I  don't  do  this,  I  must  maintain 
my  right  to  my  own  private  judgment.  I  am  accounta 
ble  only  to  God  ;  I  will  be  guided  only  by  his  Word.  I 


66  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

thought  you  and  pastor  Johnson  would  have  encouraged 
and  assisted  me  in  the  investigation  of  this  or  any  other 
question  connected  with  my  religious  faith  and  practice. 
I  know  that  he  has  always  told  us  to  examine  the  Scrip 
ture  for  ourselves — and  '  each  to  be  fully  persuaded  in 
his  own  mind.'  " 

"  Certainly,  my  child  ;  but  then  we  thought  that  your 
investigations  would  tend  to  confirm  rather  than  shake 
your  faith  in  our  doctrines  ;  but  you  seem  to  be  losing 
confidence  rather  than  increasing  it.  These  studies 
seem  only  to  disturb  and  unsettle  your  mind ;  and  I 
fear,  if  you  continue  them,  they  will  end  in  your  sepa 
ration  from  us  all.  How,  then,  can  I  help  desiring  that 
you  should  leave  off  these  distressing  investigations  ? 
Till  you  do  so,  I  can  hardly  feel  that  you  are  my  own 
dear  Theodosia.  You  begin  almost  to  feel  like  a  stran 
ger  to  me  now.  I  declare,  I  believe  you  will  break  my 
heart."  And,  overcome  by  her  maternal  feelings,  she 
burst  into  a  flood  of  tears,  in  which  the  daughter  freely 
joined. 


THE  THIRD  NIGHT'S  STUDY. 


WHICH    CONTAINS 


THE    TESTIMONY    OF    THE    PASTOR'S    WITNESSES, 


TO    PROVE    THAT 


JOHN  DID  NOT  IMMERSE  AT  ALL, 


AND    THAT 


CHRIST  DID  NOT  GO  DOWN  INTO  THE  WATER, 

^  i 

BUT 

WAS  BAPTIZED  BY  SPRINKLING 
ON  THE  BANK  OF  THE  RIVER. 


THIED    NIGHTS    STUDY. 


Rev.  Mr.  Johnson  had  been  the  pastor  of 
a  large  an(i  wealthy  congregation  for  more  than 
twenty  years.  Most  of  the  young  people  of 
his  charge  had  grown  up  under  his  pastoral 
supervision,  and  old  and  young  had  been  accus 
tomed  to  regard  his  word  as  Gospel  truth  ;  and 
when  Miss  Ernest  ventured  to  suggest  that  she  had 
never  been  baptized,  and  asked  him  for  the  proof,  it  was 
probably  the  first  time  that  one  of  the  "  baptized  chil 
dren  of  his  church"  had  ever  expressed  in  his  presence 
any  serious  doubt  of  the  full  authority  of  his  bare  and 
unsupported  word. 

After  the  brief  visit  at  Mrs.  Ernest's  which  we  have 
recorded,  he  went  to  his  study  and  commenced  the 
preparation  of  a  sermon,  which  he  hoped  and  intended 
should  prevent  any  others  of  his  congregation  from  any 
attempt  to  investigate  this  subject  for  themselves. 

He  did  not  propose  in  this  discourse  to  mention  the 
Baptists  by  name,  or  to  make  any  attempt  to  refute,  or 
even  to  denounce  their  opinions  or  practices.  (To  do 
so  might  direct  attention  to  them,  whereas  he  desired 
to  divert  it  from  them.)  But  he  determined  to  describe, 
and  denounce  as  degenerate  and  vile  apostates,  all  those 
who,  reckless  of  the  obligations  which  had  been  placed 
upon  them  in  early  infancy,  and  all  the  thousand  name 
less  ties  which  had,  in  childhood  and  youth,  bound  them 
to  the  church  in  which  they  had  been  born,  and  solemnly 
dedicated  to  God  in  baptism,  in  whose  doctrines  they 
had  been  instructed  by  parental  lips,  and  into  whose 

(69) 


70  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

communion  they  had  been  received  by  a  public  profes 
sion  of  their  faith,  and  who  should,  after  all,  be  induced 
by  some  new  coming  proselyter  to  abandon  the  faith  of 
their  fathers,  and  the  communion  of  their  own  church, 
and  break  off  like  wandering  stars,  to  be  lost  in  the 
darkness  of  anti-Presbyterian  errors.  ...  .. 

This  course,  he  was  confident,  would  be  more  effectual 
in  preserving  the  peace  and  unity  of  his  church,  and  the 
dignity  of  its  pastor,  than  any  attempt  to  reason  about 
the  doctrines  of  this  obscure  sect  of  Baptists,  who  had 
so  suddenly  begun  to  attract  attention  in  his  village. 
He  would  overwhelm  the  doubters  and  inquirers  with 
such  a  storm  of  public  indignation,  that  hereafter  no 
one  would  dare  to  doubt ;  but  in  the  meantime  it  was 
necessary,  privately,  to  satisfy  such  doubts  as  had 
already  been  expressed. 

When,  therefore,  he  had  arranged  the  heads  of  his 
discourse,  he  repaired  to  his  book-case,  and  took  down 
such  authorities  as  would  refresh  his  memory  on  the 
subject  of  baptism — especially  in  regard  to  the  points 
of  difficulty  suggested  by  Theodosia  and  Mr.  Percy. 
The  examination  of  these  occupied  the  time  till  in  the 
night,  and  was  resumed  again  the  next  morning. 

Very  early  the  next  evening,  having  his  mind  fully 
charged  with  all  the  "  strong  reasons"  upon  which  Pedo- 
baptists  are  accustomed  to  rest  their  cause,  he  called  on 
Mrs.  Ernest  and  her  daughter  again. 

"  Well,  madam,"  said  he,  "  how  has  our  conversation 
the  other  evening  affected  your  daughter  ?  I  trust  she 
has  ceased  to  be  so  much  distressed  about  these  new 
notions  as  she  was." 

"  Indeed,  Mr.  Johnson,  she  gets  worse  and  worse,  and 
I  begin  to  think  Mr.  Percy  is  going  the  same  way.  I 
am  so  sorry  Edwin  called  in  that  little  Baptist  school 
master.  It  made  my  heart  burn  to  hear  them  talk  as 


THIRD  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  71 

they  did  about  the  good  and  pious  ministers  of  our 
church.  It  seemed  to  me  they  had  no  more  respect  for 
a  minister  of  the  Gospel,  or  even  a  Doctor  of  Divinity, 
than  they  had  for  a  house  carpenter,  or  a  French  dan 
cing-master." 

"  How  so,  Mrs  Ernest  ?  I  am  sure  your  daughter 
has  been  too  well  raised  to  speak  disrespectfully  of  any 
minister  of  the  Gospel,  or  permit  another  to  do  it  in  her 
presence." 

"  That  is  just  what  I  told  her.  I  said  I  was  ashamed 
of  her,  and " 

"  But  pray  tell  me,  madam,  what  has  happened  ?  What 
was  said  that  was  so  improper  ?" 

"  Why,  only  to  think  that  that  little  impertinent  Bap 
tist  pedagogue  had  the  impudence  to  say,  sir,  here  in 
my  house,  that  our  ministers  perverted  the  Scriptures,  de 
luded  their  hearers,  set  aside  the  ordinances  of  Christ, 
and  substituted  others  in  their  place,  and  I  don't  know 
what  all.  I  was  so  angry  I  could  hardly  see." 

"  Is  it  possible  !  and  your  daughter  heard  all  of  this  ?" 

"  Yes,  sir;  and  the  worst  of  it  is,  I  do  fear,  sir,  she 
more  than  half  believes  it.  You  can't  think  how  changed 
she  is,  sir !  I  never  knew  her  to  have  a  particle  of  self- 
will  before.  She  was  always  so  gentle  and  affectionate, 
and  ready  to  yield  every  thing  to  any  body  ;  but  on  this 
subject  she  is  very  stubborn,  and  declares  she  won't 
believe  a  single  thing  but  what  she  can  see  in  the  Bible 
for  herself,  even  though  she  had  it  from  your  own  lips, 
and  all  the  rest  of  the  preachers  in  our  church. 

"  Oh,  sir,"  she  continued,  sobbing  (for  her  maternal 
feelings  had  begun  to  overcome  her),  "  if  you  don't  do 
something  for  her  she  will  be  lost  to  us  all !  Do  try  to 
show  her  where  that  sprinkling  is  in  the  Bible.  If  she 
can  see  it  there,  she  will  believe  it." 

Mr.  Johnson  was  fully  resolved  to  make  her  see  the 


72  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

sprinkling,  if  he  could  ;  but  was  not  quite  certain  as  to 
the  place  where  he  would  find  it ;  and  before  he  had  time 
to  reflect  much  upon  the  subject,  the  young  lady  came 
into  the  parlor. 

She  seemed  for  the  moment  slightly  embarassed,  evi 
dently  from  the  conviction  that  she  had  been  the  object 
of  remark,  but  greeted  her  pastor  cordially  and  respect 
fully.  It  seemed  to  him,  though  she  was  paler  than 
before,  that  she  had  grown  more  beautiful  in  the  last 
few  days.  The  unusual  mental  activity,  the  excitement 
of  a  new  object  of  investigation,  and  the  calm,  yet  firm 
and  solemn  determination  to  learn  and  to  do  her  whole 
duty,  had  imparted  to  her  eye  a  new  and  intenser  light, 
and  to  her  countenance  a  strange,  unwonted  brightness, 
as  though  the  spirit,  stirred  to  its  inmost  depths  by 
these  new  impulses,  and  burning  with  celestial  fire,  shone 
through  its  covering  of  flesh,  and  illuminated  her  face 
with  almost  more  than  mortal  radiance. 

Could  it  be  possible,  he  asked  himself,  that  this 
lovely  young  creature  could  speak  irreverently  of  sacred 
things  ? 

Alas !  how  much  her  mother  and  himself  had  misap 
prehended  the  nature  of  her  feelings.  Never  in  her  life 
had  sacred  things  appeared  to  her  so  sacred.  It  was 
because  those  great  and  good  men,  whom  she  had  been 
accustomed  from  her  infancy  to  look  upon  with  rever 
ence,  now  seemed  to  her,  themselves,  to  trifle  with  sacred 
things,  that  she  could  no  longer  regard  them  as  she  had 
done.  The  Word  of  God  ;  the  commandments  of  Jesus 
Christ ;  the  ordinances  of  the  Gospel ;  these  were  sacred 
things.  Never  so  fearfully  sacred  as  now.  And  what 
could  she  think  of  those,  who,  ministering  at  the  altar 
of  God,  perverted  and  mystified  his  Word,  to  hide  the 
truth  from  those  who  sought  for  knowledge  ?  What 
could  she  think  of  those  who  counted  the  command- 


THIRD  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  73 

merits  of  Christ,  and  the  ordinances  which  he  had  insti 
tuted,  a  "  matter  of  indifferency  ?"  She  had,  indeed,  in 
some  degree,  ceased  to  reverence  the  (so-called)  minis 
ters  of  Christ,  who  could  be  so  false  to  their  sacred 
obligations  as  to  trifle  with  God's  holy  Word,  in  order 
to  sustain  a  creed  or  a  custom  of  their  church ;  but  oh ! 
how  deep,  how  ardent,  how  unutterable  was  her  rever 
ence  for  the  Word  itself!  How  anxious,  how  agonizing 
her  desire  to  know  what  it  required  her  to  believe  and 
to  perform. 

It  may  be  that  the  pastor  had  some  suspicion  of  the 
true  state  of  her  mind  in  this  respect,  for  when  he  ad 
dressed  her,  it  was  with  an  expression  of  unusual  and 
most  respectful  consideration.  He  felt  instinctively  that 
she  was  not  now  to  be  rated  like  a  school-girl,  or  con 
vinced  by  unsustained  assertions. 

Indeed,  he  felt  a  strange  restraint  in  the  presence  of 
the  earnest-hearted,  strong-minded  girl ;  and  was  re 
volving  in  his  mind  how  he  could  best  introduce  the 
subject  which  he  came  to  talk  of,  when  she  relieved  him 
by  introducing  it  herself. 

"  You  did  not  have  time  the  other  evening,"  said  she, 
"  to  finish  your  remarks  on  the  subject  of  baptism.  You 
told  me,  you  will  recollect,  that  there  was  good  and 
sufficient  evidence  to  show  that  our  Saviour  was  not 
baptized  in  the  river  at  all,  and  that  he  was  baptized  by 
sprinkling,  and,  of  course,  if  this  was  so,  sprinkling  is 
the  Christian  baptism." 

"  You  state  the  case  a  little  too  strongly,  my  daugh 
ter  ;  I  meant  to  say  only  that  there  is  no  evidence  that 
he  was  baptized  in  the  river ;  and  that  the  baptism  which 
he  commanded  (the  baptism  of  the  Gospel  dispensation) 
was  performed  by  sprinkling." 

"  Please,  Mr.  Johnson,  don't  try  to  mystify  me.  Do 
you  mean  to  say  that  the  baptism  which  Christ  sub- 
7 


74  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

mitted  to,  and  the  baptism  which  he  commanded,  were 
two  different  things,  and  that  one  was  immersion,  and 
the  other  sprinkling  ?" 

"  Not  exactly,  my  daughter ;  I  only  meant  to  say  they 
might  be  different.  John's  baptism  was  not  Christian 
baptism.  It  was  the  baptism  of  repentance,  designed  to 
introduce  Christianity.  It  prepared  the  way  for  the 
Gospel,  but  was  itself  no  part  of  the  Gospel  dispensa 
tion." 

"And  yet,  Mr.  Johnson,  Mark  says  it  was  'the  begin 
ning  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ.'  But  it  does  not 
make  any  difference  to  me  whether  it  was  Christian 
baptism  or  not.  I  simply  want  to  know  about  the  act 
performed.  John  did  something,  which  is  called  bap 
tism.  Multitudes  came  to  him,  and  were  baptized  by 
him  in  the  river  of  Jordan.  Jesus  also  came  to  him, 
and  was  baptized  in  the  river  of  Jordan.  Then  Jesus 
went  himself  into  Judea,  and  there  he  tarried  and  bap 
tized  ;  and  at  the  same  time  John  also  was  baptizing  in 
JBnon,  near  Salim ;  and  Jesus  baptized  more  than  John 
baptized.  These  baptisms  were  confined  to  the  Jews ; 
but  after  his  death,  Jesus  told  the  disciples  to  go  and 
preach  his  Gospel  to  all  other  nations,  and  baptize  them ; 
and  we  learn  from  the  Acts  that  they  who  gladly  re 
ceived  the  Word  were  baptized,  both  Jews  and  Gen 
tiles. 

"  Now,  what  I  want  to  know  is  this :  when  John 
baptized,  he  performed  a  certain  act.  When  Jesus  and 
his  disciples  baptized,  did  they  not  perform  the  same 
act  ?  and  when  he  commanded  to  baptize  the  Gentiles 
also,  did  he  not  command  the  same  act  to  be  performed, 
and  did  not  the  disciples  perform  the  same  act,  in  obe 
dience  to  that  command  ?  The  same  word  is  used,  does 
it  not  mean  the  same  thing  ?" 

"  If  it  does,  my  child,  it  must  mean  something  else 


TIJIRD  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  75 

besides  immersion,  for  in  many  of  these  cases  of  bap 
tism,  immersion  was  out  of  the  question.  In  fact,  it  is 
very  certain  that  John  did  not  immerse  those  whom  he 
baptized;  though  if  he  had,  it  would  not  follow  that 
Christ  commanded  immersion.  John  may  have  done 
one  thing,  and  Christ  may  have  commanded  something 
else." 

"  Yery  true,  Mr.  Johnson ;  he  may  have  done  it,  but 
where  is  the  proof  that  he  did  ?  My  name  might  have 
been  Susan,  but  then  I  would  not  have  been  called 
Theodosia.  If  he  had  meant  another  act,  he  would  have 
used  a  different  word." 

"  Not  if  the  word  might  mean  either  one  or  the  other. 
You  know  that  we  contend  that  the  word  baptize  means 
to  sprinkle,  to  pour,  to  wet,  to  wash,*  as  truly  as  it 
means  to  dip  or  to  immerse." 

"  Well,  Mr.  Johnson,  even  supposing  it  does  have  all 
these  meanings,  the  disciples  must  have  understood  the 
Saviour  to  use  it  (when  speaking  in  reference  to  his 
ordinance)  in  some  one  of  them,  and  that  one  would  be 
fixed  by  his  own  example.  What  he  received  as  baptism 
from  John  in  Jordan,  they  would  ever  after  consider  to 
be  baptism ;  and  would  necessarily  suppose  he  meant 
that  act  when  he  used  the  word,  even  though  it  had  a 
hundred  meanings.  But  if  you  will  pardon  me  for  being 
so  troublesome,  I  would  like  to  know  what  proof  there 
is  that  baptize  in  the  Greek  language  has  all  these  vari 
ous  meanings  ?  We  looked  into  a  Greek  Lexicon  the 
other  day  to  find  the  meaning  of  the  word,  and  we  could 
not  find  any  thing  at  all  about  sprinkling  or  pouring 
among  the  definitions  there." 

"You  looked  in  a  Greek  Lexicon.  You  can't  read 
Greek,  can  you?" 

*  See  Dr.  Miller. 


76 


TUEODOSIA    ERNEST. 


"  No,  sir ;  but  brother  Edwin  is  studying  the  lan 
guage,  and  he  found  the  word,  and  I  could  read  the 
definition." 

"  And  so  you  think  you  and  Edwin  are  competent 
critics  of  a  disputed  point  in  the  Greek  language  ?" 

"  Oh,  no !  Mr.  Johnson,  don't  laugh  at  me.  If  you 
knew  how  anxious  I  am  to  learn  the  truth,  I  am  sure 
you  would  sympathize  with  me  and  assist  me.  We  did 
not  think  we  knew  any  thing  about  it,  and  that  is  the 
reason  that  we  went  to  the  Lexicon  to  learn.  It  is  not 
Edward's  opinion  that  I  referred  to,  but  that  of  the 
learned  Prof.  Donegan.  And  Mr.  Percy  has  since  ex 
amined  quite  a  number  of  other  Greek  scholars  upon 
the  same  subject,  and  he  has  not  found  that  any  one  of 
them  gives  sprinkling  as  one  of  the  meanings  of  baptize, 
though  all  agree  in  dipping." 

"  And  so  you,  and  Edwin,  and  Mr.  Percy  set  your 
selves  up  to  teach  such  men  as  Dr.  Miller  and  other 
learned  theological  writers  of  our  church,  the  meaning 
of  the  Greek  language  !  Don't  you  intend  presently  to 
write  a  commentary  on  the  Scriptures  ?  or  a  book  of 
Practical  Divinity  ?  Edited  jointly  by  Miss  Ernest  and 
Mr.  Percy!" 

The  young  lady  looked  at  her  pastor  in  astonishment. 
She  blushed  deeply ;  tears  filled  her  eyes,  and  her  utter 
ance  was  choked.  She  had  expected  sympathy  and 
assistance  ;  she  met  with  ridicule  and  rebuke.  Poor 
girl,  she  did  not  know  how  hard  it  is  for  one  who  has 
long  been  accustomed  to  rule  other  minds,  and  have  his 
bare  assertion  received  as  unquestionable  truth,  to  be 
called  011  for  proof.  If  he  said  baptize  meant  to  sprinkle, 
what  right  had  she,  poor,  simple  girl,  to  doubt  his  word 
or  ask  for  evidence  ?  Why,  even  he,  a  minister  of  the 
Gospel,  had  never  asked  for  proof  when  Dr.  Miller  said 
it.  He  had  always  taken  it  for  granted  that  baptism 


THIRD  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  77 

was  sprinkling,  or  such  men  as  Dr.  Miller  would  not 
have  asserted  that  it  was ;  nor  would  the  church  have 
enjoined  or  permitted  it. 

There  was  an  awkward  pause  in  the  conversation,  for 
Theodosia  was  too  deeply  mortified  and  embarrassed  to 
know  how  to  begin  again. 

Mr.  Johnson  saw  that  he  had  made  a  deep  impression, 
though  he  did  not  feel  quite  certain  of  its  nature.  And 
he  said,  very  mildly,  "  My  dear  child,  don't  pretend  to 
be  wiser  than  your  teachers.  I  can  solemnly  assure 
you,  as  a  Christian  man  and  a  Christian  minister,  that 
the  word  we  render  baptize  does  legitimately  signify  the 
application  of  water  in  any  way  as  well  as  by  immersion, 
no  matter  what  the  Lexicons  may  say ;  and  if  so,  sprink 
ling  is  as  much  baptism  as  dipping.  The  quantity  of 
water  used  does  not  affect  the  validity  of  the  ordinance." 

To  this  Theodosia  did  not  reply.  She  felt  that  it  was 
useless  to  ask  again  for  proof;  and  if  she  did  not  feel 
disposed  to  trust  even  her  pastor's  solemn  declaration 
in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  baptize,  it  was  because  she 
remembered  that  Dr.  Barnes  had  proved  it  to  mean 
"not  to  sprinkle,"  but  "to  dip;"  that  Stuart  admitted 
this  to  be  its  prevalent  and  common  signification  ;  that 
the  great  Dr.  Chalmers  expressly  asserted  that  its'  mean 
ing  was  to  dip,  and  that  it  was  immersion  which  was 
practiced  in  the  early  churches ;  that  McKnight  and 
other  most  eminent  and  learned  Pedobaptists  all  agreed 
perfectly  with  the  Lexicons  in  giving  immersion  as  its 
true  meaning,  and  proving  that  such  was  the  under 
standing  and  practice  of  the  apostolic  churches.  What 
Baptists  might  teach  she  did  not  know,  for  as  yet  she 
had  not  read  a  Baptist  book.  She  had  common  sense 
enough  to  understand  that  if  there  had  been  any  sprink 
ling  or  pouring  in  the  Word,  such  men  as  Stuart,  and 
Chalmers,  and  McKnight,  would  have  been  sure  to  find 


78  TIIEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

it  and  parade  it  before  the  world  as  a  justification  of 
their  practice.  Though  she  was  silent,  therefore,  she 
was  far  from  being  satisfied. 

Mr.  Johnson,  acting  on  the  adage  that  "  silence  gives 
consent,"  considered  this  point  as  settled  ;  "  and  now," 
he  continued,  "  if  this  be  the  case,  if  the  word  means 
to  sprinkle  or  to  pour,  as  well  as  to  immerse,  it  is  evi 
dent  that  John  might  have  dipped,  and  Christ  might 
have  commanded  sprinkling,  and  yet  have  used  the  same 
word  which  is  used  to  describe  John's  baptism.  I  might 
rest  the  case  here ;  but  I  will  go  farther,  and  assert  that 
John's  baptism  was  not  immersion  at  all." 

"Good  evening,  Mr.  Johnson,  I  am  glad  to  hear  you 
say  that,"  said  Mr.  Percy,  who  chanced  to  come  in  at 
the  moment,  and  heard  this  strange  assertion.  "If  we 
can  only  establish  that  position  we  will  throw  the  Bap 
tists  out  of  court." 

"  Nothing  is  easier  done,  Mr.  Percy,"  said  the  pastor. 
"  It  could  not  have  been  immersion,  in  the  first  place, 
because  immersion  was  impossible." 

"  Of  course,"  said  Mr.  Percy,  "  if  immersion  was  im 
possible,  it  could  not  have  been  immersion.  What  was 
impossible  could  not  have  been  done." 

"  Very  well,  then,  that  settles  the  question,  for  it  was 
clearly  impossible  for  John  to  have  immersed  thie  thou 
sands  and  thousands  (not  to  say  the  millions)  that  re 
sorted  to  him  for  baptism." 

"  I  don't  know  about  that,"  said  Mr.  Percy.  "  In  the 
first  place,  we  must  determine  just  how  many  there  were, 
and  then  just  how  many  John  was  able  to  dip.  Do  you 
know  how  many  there  were?" 

"Not  precisely,"  said  the  pastor,  "but  there  were 
great  multitudes.  The  Evangelist  says,  Jerusalem  and 
all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan,  went 
to  him  and  were  baptized.  Now  the  population  of  Jeru- 


THIRD  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  79 

salem  itself  was  a  prodigious  multitude,  and  that  of  all 
Judea  added  to  it  would  surely  be  more  than  one  man 
could  dip  in  the  time  of  John's  public  ministry." 

"  But,"  said  Mr.  Percy,  "  it  does  not  say  that  all  the 
inhabitants  went.  It  says  the  places  went ;  by  which  we 
are  to  understand,  that  some  of  each  place  mentioned 
went.  Just  as  if  I  should  say,  that  in  the  great  politi 
cal  Convention  of  1840,  all  Tennessee  was  gathered  at 
Nashville  to  hear  Henry  Clay.  I  would  not  mean  that 
every  man,  woman,  and  child  in  the  State  was  there,  but 
only  that  there  were  some  from  every  part  of  it.  Just 
so,  Matthew  says  Jerusalem  came — that  is,  a  great  many 
people  from  Jerusalem  and  Judea,  and  the  country 
round  about  Jordan  came ;  that  is  to  say,  the  country 
as  well  as  the  city  was  fully  represented  in  the  crowd. 
Besides,  John  did  not  baptize  all  who  came.  He  posi 
tively  refused  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  who  com 
posed  a  great  part  of  the  Jewish  nation.  I  do  not  see, 
therefore,  that  we  have  any  means  of  knowing  the  exact 
number  of  the  baptized." 

"But  it  can't  be  denied,"  said  the  pastor,  "that  it 
was  an  immense  multitude,  too  many  for  one  man  to 
have  immersed." 

"  Will  you  permit  me  to  ask  a  question  ?"  said  Theo- 
dosia,  timidly  (for  she  had  become  almost  afraid  to 
speak  at  all,  since  that  suggestion  of  the  pastor  about  a 
joint  editorship  with  Mr.  Percy  in  a  body  of  divinity.) 
"Will  you  permit  me  to  ask  how  much  longer  it 
would  take  to  immerse  them,  one  at  a  time,  than  it  would 
to  sprinkle  them  one  at  a  time,  in  a  decent  and  reverent 
way?" 

"  We  do  not  know,"  said  the  pastor,  "  that  they  were 
sprinkled  one  at  a  time.  They  might  have  stood  in  reg 
ular  ranks  along  the  bank,  and  John  taking  a  bunch  of 


80  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

hyssop  might  have  dipped  it  in  the  river  and  sprinkled 
them  by  dozens  as  he  passed  along." 

"Or,"  suggested  Mr.  Percy,  "he  might  have  pro 
vided  himself  with  a  large  sized  syringe  or  squirt  gun, 
and  filling  it  from  the  river  have  turned  its  stream  along 
the  ranks,  as  I  have  seen  the  boys  do  at  school,  sprink 
ling  a  whole  bench  of  boys  before  the  master  could  see 
who  did  it." 

This  was  uttered  with  such  a  perfectly  serious  air 
that  the  pastor  was  obliged  to  receive  it  as  an  amend 
ment  to  his  own  supposition,  though  he  could  not  help 
seeing  in  what  a  ridiculous  light  it  placed  both  the  bap- 
tizer  and  his  subjects ;  and  surely,  there  is,  in  the  nar 
rative  of  the  Evangelists,  quite  as  much  evidence  of  the 
use  of  the  squirt  as  of  the  hyssop. 

"  There  is  another  thought,"  said  Theodosia,  "  which 
it  seems  to  me,  will  obviate  all  the  difficulty  in  the  way 
of  either  a  personal  dipping  or  a  separate  sprinkling  of 
each  individual.  The  Evangelist  says  that  Jesus  made 
and  baptized  more  disciples  than  John — and  when  the 
disciples  were  gathered  together  after  his  death,  there 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  a  very  great  multitude.  So 
it  is  probable,  I  should  think,  that  though  great  multi 
tudes  came  to  John,  and  great  multitudes  followed  Christ, 
yet  comparatively  few  brought  forth  fruit  to  justify 
their  baptism.  And  besides  this,  as  Jesus  is  said  to 
have  baptized,  though  he  did  not  do  it  personally,  but 
by  his  disciples,  so  John  may  have  done  a  portion  of 
his  baptizing  by  his  disciples." 

"Spoken  like  yourself,  Miss  Theodosia,"  said  Mr. 
Percy.  "  That  does  indeed  obviate  all  difficulty.  The 
baptism,  whatever  it  was,  must  have  been  a  personal, 
individual  transaction ;  and  as  it  would  take  'as  long  to 
sprinkle  a  person,  and  say  over  the  proper  formula  of 
words,  as  it  would  to  dip  him,  one  is  just  as  possible  as 


THIRD  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  81 

the  other,  and  either  entirely  practicable  with  the  aid 
of  the  disciples.     Don't  you  think  so,  Mr.  Johnson?" 

"  No,  I  do  not ;  but  let  it  pass.  I  have  another  reason 
for  believing  that  John  did  not  immerse.  It  says  ex 
pressly  that  he  baptized  in  Bethabara,  beyond  Jordan — 
and  iu  the  wilderness,  as  well  as  at  the  much  waters  or 
many  waters  of  yEnon,  and  at  the  river  Jordan.  Now, 
as  there  is  no  mention  made  of  a  river  at  Bethabara,  or 
of  a  lake  in  the  wilderness,  it  is  fair  to  infer  that  no 
great  quantity  of  water  was  reduired — and,  consequently, 
whatever  he  may  have  done  in  Jordan,  he  did  not  im 
merse  in  Bethabara  or  in  the  wilderness." 

"  Why  not,  Mr.  Johnson  ?  I  can  easily  understand 
that  he  was  baptizing  in  the  wilderness,  Bethabara,  and 
Jordan  at  one  and  the  same  time.  The  Jews  (as  I  have 
learned  in  my  Sunday-school  lessons)  called  any 
sparsely  settled  place  a  wilderness ;  and  Bethabara  was 
a  ford  or  a  ferry-house,  on  the  cast  bank  of  the  Jordan. 
If  the  neighborhood  was  lonely,  it  would  be  said  to  be 
in  the  wilderness ;  and  a  baptism  performed  in  the  Jor 
dan,  at  that  place,  might  be  said  with  equal  propriety 
to  be  performed  in  the  wilderness,  in  Bethabara,  or  in 
Jordan.  Just  as  I  might  say  that  a  person  was  bap 
tized  in  Davidson  county,  or  in  the  city  of  Nashville, 
though  the  act  was  performed  in  the  Cumberland  river, 
where  it  passes  the  city." 

"  Well,"  said  Mr.  Johnson,  "  I  do  not  insist  on  this 
point ;  and  I  leave  it  more  readily,  as  I  have  an  argu 
ment  that  is  perfectly  unanswerable ;  and  that  is,  that 
John  says  himself  that  he  did  not  immerse — over  and 
over  again  he  repeated  this  testimony :  '  I  indeed 
baptize  you  with  water,  but  he  that  cometh  after  me 
shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire.' 
'  I  am  come,'  he  says, '  baptizing  with  water ;'  and  again : 
'  he  that  sent  me  to  baptize  with  water.'  Now,  when  I 


82  T1IEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

want  to  know  how  John  baptized,  I  go  right  up  to  the 
reverend  man  with  the  hairy  garment,  and  ask  him  to 
tell  me  for  himself.  '  Did  you  baptize  by  immersion  ?' 
'  No,  sir ;  1  baptize  with  water,  not  in  water.  I  was 
sent  to  baptize  with  water,  not  in  water — as  he  that 
cometh  after  me  baptizes  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  not  in 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire,  not  in  fire.  So  I  bap 
tize  with  water,  not  in  the  water.  I  apply  the  water 
to  the  subject,  not  the  subject  to  the  water.'  " 

"  There  does  seem  to  be  some  force  in  that,"  said  Mr. 
Percy. 

"  To  be  sure,  there  not  only  seems  to  be,  but  there  is 
a  world  of  force  in  it.  It  is  perfectly  unanswerable,  sir. 
I  am  willing  to  rest  our  cause  on  this  one  point  alone. 
You  can  easily  understand  how  one  can  sprinkle  with 
water,  or  pour  upon  with  water,  but  no  one  would  ever 
speak  of  immersing  WITH  water." 

Theodosia  began  to  think  of  her  pastor  as  she  had 
done  before  his  visit.  He  was  not,  after  all,  disposed 
to  rest  every  thing  on  his  bare  word.  He  had  the 
proof,  and  had  produced  it,  and  that,  too,  just  as  she 
desired,  from  the  Book  itself.  Still  there  was  a  difficulty. 
If  John  did  not  immerse,  why  did  he  baptize  in  the 
river  ?  Why  did  Jesus,  after  he  was  baptized,  come  up 
out  of  the  water  ? 

These  were  insuperable  difficulties,  but  she  knew  not 
how  to  present  them  without  seeming  wiser  than  her 
teacher. 

Mr.  Johnson,  seemingly  satisfied  with  the  victory  he 
had  won,  was  about  to  take  his  leave,  although  it  was 
yet  earty,  promising  to  call  again  soon,  and  show  that 
there  was  no  instance  of  immersion  as  baptism  recorded 
in  the  whole  New  Testament. 

"Not  only  is  it  true,"  said  he,  "that  John  did  not 
immerse,  but  there  is  no  recognition  of  immersion  as 


THIRD  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  83 

baptism  in  the  Book.  Neither  before  the  death  of 
Christ,  nor  afterward,  did  the  disciples  ever  dip  the 
baptized  person  in  the  water." 

"  Please  stop  a  minute  longer,"  said  Mr.  Percy. 
"  While  we  are  on  John's  baptism,  I  want  to  ask  a 
single  question.  If  John  did  not  immerse,  why  did  he 
baptize  in  the  river  ?  If  Jesus  was  not  immersed,  how 
does  it  happen  that  he  had  been  in  the  water?  If 
Philip  did  not  immerse  the  Ethiopian  Eunuch,  for  what 
reason  did  they  go  down  both  of  them  into  the  water, 
before  the  baptism,  and  come  up  out  of  it  after  it  was 
done  ?  Nobody  in  these  days  goes  down  into  the  water 
to  baptize  unless  he  is  a  Baptist." 

"  They  did  not  go  into  the  water,  then,"  replied  Mr. 
Johnson,  "  any  more  than  we~Presbyterians  do  now. 
There  is  no  proof  that  John,  or  Jesus/tor  Philip,  or  the 
Eunuch,  ever  went  into  the  water  at  all." 

"How  can  that  be,"  asked  Theodosia,  "when  the 
Scripture  says  expressly  that  they  were  baptized  '  in 
the  river  of  Jordan,'  and  that  Jesus  'came  up  out  of 
the  water,'  and  that  both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  'went 
down  into  the  water,'  and  '  came  up  out  of  the  water  ?' " 

"  I  know  it  reads  so  in  our  version,"  said  the  pastor, 
. "  but  in  the  original  it  reads  near  or  at  the  river,  not  in 
it.  And  down  to  the  water,  not  into  it,  and  up  from  the 
water,  not  out  of  it." 

"  Were  the  translators  of  our  version  Baptists  ?" 
asked  Mr.  Percy. 

"  No,  sir.  It  is  well  known  that  they  were  of  the 
Church  of  England." 

"  Had  they  any  motive  to  favor  the  cause  of  the 
Baptists?" 

"  None  at  all,  that  I  can  conceive  of." 

"  How.  then,  did  they  come  to  make  such  blundering 
work?" 


84  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

"  I  cannot  tell ;  but  if  they  had  known  that  the  Bap 
tists  would  make  such  a  handle  of  these  little  words 
'  in,  and  out  o/,'  I  have  110  doubt  they  would  have  been 
more  cautious.  I  hope  now,  Miss  Theodosia,  that  your 
mind  is  relieved.  I  will  try  to  see  you  again  to-morrow, 
when  we  will  finish  the  subject.  For  the  present,  I  must 
bid  you  good-night." 

Theodosia  accompanied  him  to  the  door,  to  light  him 
ont,  and  glancing  up  the  street  in  the  opposite  direction 
to  that  which  he  took,  she  discovered  Edwin  and  Mr. 
Courtney  returning  from  an  evening  recitation,  and 
could  not  resist  the  desire  to  hear  what  the  teacher 
might  have  to  say  about  baptizing  with  the  water  at  the 
bank  of  the  river.  She  accordingly  waited  till  he  came 
by,  and  invited  him  in. 

"  Well,  Courtney,"  said  Mr.  Percy,  as  he  entered  the 
parlor,  "  we  have  got  you  in  a  tight  place  now." 

"  Why  ?  what  has  happened  ?  Any  thing  wonderful  ? 
You  look  as  though  you  thought  so." 

"  Yes,  sir.  The  truth  is,  Mr.  Johnson  did  have  some 
strong  reasons,  and  he  has  brought  them  out  on  us 
to-night.  He  has  in  fact  proved  what  he  said,  and  what 
you  seemed  to  think  impossible;  that  John's  baptism 
was  not  immersion,  and  that  the  Saviour  never  went  into 
the  water  at  all,  but  was  sprinkled  on  the  bank." 

"  Well,  how  did  he  make  all  that  out  ?" 

"  From  the  testimony  of  John  himself.  John  says 
that  he  baptized  not  in  but  with  water.  It  is  easy  to 
conceive  of  sprinkling  with  water,  but  no  one  ever  heard 
of  immersing  with  water." 

"  Is  that  all  ?" 

"  Yes,  that  is  the  substance  of  the  argument." 

"  Is  it  possible,"  said  Mr.  Courtney,  "  that  a  minister 
of  Jesus  Christ  can  take  such  liberties  with  the  Word 
of  God ! !" 


THIRD  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  85 

"  What  do  you  mean  ?  Mr.  Courtney.  Is  it  not  all 
so  ?"  asked  Theodosia,  in  alarm,  for  she  felt  that  if  her 
pastor  had  deceived  her,  even  in  this  point,  she  could 
never  trust  the  word  of  any  one  again  upon  this  sub 
ject, 

"  Mr.  Percy,"  said  Mr.  Courtney,  "  can  you  read 
Greek?  But  never  mind,  Edwin  shall  set  us  right." 

"  I  can  read  a  little,  and,  when  in.  practice,  could  do 
as  well  as  most  of  our  graduates,"  said  Mr.  Percy. 

"  Well,  then,  you  can  judge  if  I  attempt  to  deceive 
you.  Now,  what  will  you  say  if  you  find  that  John's 
assertion,  so  often  repeated,  reads  in  the  Greek  Testa 
ment,  in  every  instance,  I  baptize  you  '  in*  water,  never 
'  with,1  in  a  single  case  ?  What  will  you  say  if  you  read, 
not  only  that  Christ  was  baptized  '  iri>  Jordan,  but '  into' 
the  river  of  Jordan  ?" 

"  Why,  I  will  say  that  you  have  gained  a  victory  over 
all  the  doubts  and  difficulties  which  remained  in  my 
mind,  and  I  will  be  convinced  that  John  immersed,  and 
that  Jesus  was  immersed  by  him  in  Jordan." 

"And  I,"  said  Theodosia,  "will  be  convinced  that 
theologians  are  the  strangest  people  in  the  world." 

"  Say  rather,  Presbyterian  or  Pedobaptist  theolo 
gians,  Miss  Ernest,  for  the  Baptists  do  not  have  to  bear 
up  and  twist  about  under  such  a  load  of  error  and  in 
consistency,  and  can  consequently  afford  to  talk,  right 
out,  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the 
truth.  They  can  afford  to  take  the  Bible,  the  whole 
Bible,  and  nothing  but  the  Bible,  with  every  word  trans 
lated  into  plain  English,  and  abide  by  its  decisions. 
They  shun  on  investigation,  avoid  no  controversy,  and 
have  no  need  to  change  or  keep  concealed  one  single 
word  of  the  holy  record.  But  let  us  to  our  task,  for  it 
is  growing  late.  Edwin,  have  you  your  Greek  Testa 
ment  here?" 


36  THEODOS1A    ERNEST. 

"Yes,  sir;  and  ray  Lexicon  and  Grammar." 

"  Please  bring  them  in. 

"  Edwin,  can  you  tell  us  what  is  the  primary  and 
ordinary  meaning  of  the  Gi'eek  preposition  '  en'  ?" 

"  It  means  in,  sir  ;  or  within,  with  the  idea  of  rest  in. 
a  place."  (See  Bullion's  Greek  Grammar,  p.  170.) 

"  What  is  the  difference  between  en  and  eis  ?" 

"Eis  signifies  motion  from  without  to  within.  En 
corresponds  to  the  English  preposition  in — eis  corres 
ponds  to  the  English  into." 

"  I  asked  those  questions,  Mr.  Percy,  not  on  your  ac 
count,  but  to  satisfy  Miss  Ernest.  You  are  perfectly 
aware  (as  every  school-boy  who  has  gotten  through  his 
Greek  Grammar  must  be)  of  the  correctness  of  Edwin's 
answers. 

"  Now  be  kind  enough  to  take  the  Greek  Testament, 
and  find  John  i.  26 — '  I  baptize  with  water.'  How  does 
it  read  ?" 

"  It  reads,  '  baptizo  en  udati,'  in  water,  true  enough." 

"And  so  you  will  find  it  in  every  place.  See  the  31st 
verse,  '  en1  again ;  so  in  the  33d,  and  every  place  where 
this  expression,  which  your  pastor  so  much  relies  upon, 
can  be  found. 

"  In  any  other  Greek  book,  any  school-boy  would, 
without  hesitation,  translate  it, '  I  immerse  you  in  water.' 
'  I  am  come  immersing  in  water,'  etc.  But  now,  if  you 
will  turn  to  Mark  i.  9,  you  will  find  that  the  preposition 
is  not  '  en,'  but  '  eis.'  So  that  Jesus  is  said  to  have  been 
baptized  or  dipped,  not  merely  in  but  ('eis'}  into  the 
river  of  Jordan. 

"  Now  these  two  words,  en  and  eis,  are  the  only  words 
by  which  the  Greek  language  could  express,  without 
circumlocution,  the  idea  of  going  into,  or  being  in  a 
thing  or  place ;  and  therefore,  if  neither  of  them  says 


THIRD  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  ST 

that  the  baptism  was  done  in  the  river,  I  do  not  see  how 
it  could  be  said  to  have  been  done  there.. 

"  Now  I  grant  that,  very  rarely,  en  does  mean  with, 
and  that  it  sometimes,  though  very  seldom,  does  mean 
at,  or  near ;  but  neither  of  these  is  the  primary,  com 
mon,  every-day  use  of  the  word.  En  means  in,  in  Greek, 
as  much  as  in  does  in  English.  Eis  means  into,  in 
Greek,  as  much  as  into  does  in  English." 

"But,  Mr.  Courtney,  there  must  be  some  foundation 
for  Mr.  Johnson's  supposition,  that  en  means  with,  or  it 
would  not  have  been  so  translated." 

"  Yery  true,  Miss  Ernest  En  does  sometimes  (though 
very  rarely)  mean  with  in  the  sense  of  the  instrument — 
by  which  an  action  is  accomplished.  But  when  a  man 
would  found  an  argument  on  its  having  that  meaning  in 
every  particular  case,  he  must  first  prove  that  such  is  OF 

NECESSITY    ITS     MEANING    IN     THAT     INSTANCE.       If    'En 

udati1  necessarily  meant  with  water — if  that  WEB  even  its 
common,  primary  meaning,  as  it  would  be  naturally 
understood  in  any  other  book,  or  in  connection  with  any 
other  subject,  then  it  might  form  the  basis  for  an  argu 
ment  ;  but  no  school-boy  would  think  of  any  thing  else 
but  in  water,  whenever  he  would  see  it ;  and,  conse 
quently,  for  a  classical  scholar,  like  your  pastor,  to  form 
an  argument  upon  'with,'  as  the  common  meaning  of 
'  en,'  is  indicative  either  of  great  carelessness,  or  wilful 
perversion  of  the  Word  of  God. 

"  Here  is  a  fact  which  will  enable  you  to  form  some 
more  definite  conception  of  the  nature  of  the  case.  Some 
very  industrious  gentleman  has  counted  the  places,  and 
so  ascertained  that  this  little  preposition  '  EN'  occurs  no 
less  than  two  thousand  seven  hundred  and  twenty  times 
in  the  New  Testament.  In  about  twenty-five  hundred 
of  these  places,  it  is  in  our  version  correctly  rendered 
IN.  In  over  twenty  other  places,  in  would  better  express 


88  THEOD08IA   ERNEST. 

the  evident  meaning  of  the  original.  In  only  about  forty 
places,  out  of  over  twenty-seven  hundred,  does  it  of 
necessity  mean  with,  in  the  sense  of  the  instrument  or 
material  with  which  any  thing  is  done.  The  chances, 
therefore,  are  as  twenty-seven  hundred  to  forty,  that  an 
argument  based  on  the  word  '  with '  (where  it  stands  for 
the  Greek  word  'en ')  will  lead  to  a  false  conclusion,  and 
the  chances  are  as  twenty-seven  hundred  to  forty  that 
an  argument  based  on  'in,'  as  the  real  meaning  of  the 
word,  will  lead  to  a  true  conclusion.  I  baptize  you  in 
water,  or,  if  we  translate  both  words,  I  immerse,  or 
more  properly,  I  dip  you  in  water,  is  therefore  the  true 
reading." 

"  But  why,  Mr.  Courtney,  should  our  translators  have 
employed  '  with  '  whenever  '  en  '  occurs  in  connection 
with  baptize?" 

"  For  the  same  reason,  Miss  Ernest,  that  they  refused 
to  translate  baptize.  They  were  forbidden  by  King 
James  to  change  the  '  Ecclesiastical  words.'  They  must 
not  teach  immersion.  But  if  they  had  said  baptize  '  in  ' 
water,  it  would  have  been  just  as  plain  that  there  was  no 
sprinkling  or  pouring  in  the  ordinance,  as  though  they 
had  translated  '  baptize '  in  the  New  Testament,  in  the 
same  way  that  you  have  seen  they  did  in  the  Old,  in  all 
the  places  where  (according  to  Mr.  Barnes)  the  word 
occurs. 

"But  they  did  not  use  'with,''  in  every  case,  because 
that  construction  would  have  been,  in  some  instances, 
such  a  monstrous  perversion,  that  every  one  could  see 
it.  They  did  not  venture  to  say  that  the  people  were 
baptized  WITH  the  river  of  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins ; 
or  that  Christ  was  baptized  WITH  the  Jordan  ;  or  that 
John  was  baptizing  WITH  the  wilderness.  Mark  i.  4.  It 
was  only  where  the  connection  did  not  make  the  mean 
ing  clearly  obvious  to  the  unlearned,  that  they  ventured 


THIRD  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  89 

to  mystify  the  ordinance  by  the  substitution  of  with,  in 
the  place  of  the  common  and  primary  meaning  of  the 
'en.'" 

"If  I  do  not  forget,"  said  Mr.  Percy,  "with,  when 
signifying  the  instrument  by  which  any  thing  is  done,  is 
in  the  Greek  language,  commonly  expressed  by  '  dia ' 
construed  with  the  genitive." 

"Yes;  but  even  if  John  had  said  '•dia,'1  instead  of 
'  en,'  the  pastor  would  have  had  no  sufficient  basis  for 
his  argument ;  for  even  '  did?  would  have  been  a  very 
slight,  and  very  narrow,  and  very  sandy  foundation. 
It  would  only  have  told  that  it  was  water,  and  not  oil, 
or  mud,  or  sand,  or  any  other  instrument  or  material 
with  which  the  baptism  was  performed.  It  would  have 
said  nothing  at  all  about  the  mode  of  performing  the 
act.  If  I  say  that  the  cloth  of  which  my  coat  was 
made  was  colored  with  a  solution  of  indigo,  I  don't 
even  intimate  that  the  solution  was  sprinkled  on  it  or 
poured  on  it.  The  cloth  was  dipped  in  it.  I  only 
mean  that  it  was  dipped  in  indigo,  not  in  logwood,  or 
madder,  or  any  other  dye-stuff.  If  I  say  that  the 
leather  of  which  my  boots  arc  made,  was  tanned  with 
an  infusion  of  hemlock  bark,  I  don't  deny  that  it  was 
dipped  in  the  infusion,  I  only  mean  that  it  was  hemlock, 
not  black  oak,  or  red  oak,  or  any  other  kind  of  material 
that  was  -used." 

"  Oh,  yes !"  exclaimed  Edwin,  who  all  the  time  had 
been  a  most  attentive,  though  a  silent  listener.  "  I 
asked  old  aunt  Chloe,  the  cook,  only  this  morning,  how 
she  would  get  the  feathers  off  the  chicken  she  was 
killing  for  dinner.  '  I  will  scald  it,'  said  she,  '  with  hot 
water.'  And  I  went  into  the  kitchen,  and  saw  her  doing  it 
by  putting  it  into  the  water.  And  big  Joe,  the  butcher, 
when  he  killed  our  hogs  last  Christmas,  loosened  the 
bristles  and  hair  with  hot  water,  but  he  did  it  by  im- 
8 


90  TIIEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

mersion,  for  he  dipped  them  several  times  into  the 
barrel  and  then  pulled  them  out  and  scraped  them." 

"  That  will  do,  Edwin,"  said  Mr.  Percy,  laughing. 
"  I  see  we  must  give  it  up.  If  you  won't  give  us  any 
more  illustrations,  I  will  promise  never  to  mention 
'  with1  again,  by  way  of  argument  on  this  subject,  as 
long  as  I  live ;  and  seriously,  Mr.  Courtney,  I  feel  that 
I  have  reason  to  be  ashamed  of  myself  for  having  been 
so  easily  imposed  upon  by  this  mere  semblance  of  argu 
ment,  presented  with  so  much  parade,  and  such  an  air 
of  confidence,  by  our  pastor,  Mr.  Johnson.  I  shall 
soon  begin,  like  Miss  Ernest,  to  lose  confidence  in  all 
teachings  but  those  of  the  Bible,  and  in  all  teachers  but 
my  own  judgment." 

"These,  sir,  are  your  only  safeguards,"  replied  Mr. 
Courtney ;  "  but  it  is  well  to  remember,  that,  though 
God's  word  is  infallible,  our  judgment  may  be  biased 
by  our  feelings ;  and  when  we  study  the  Word,  there 
fore,  we  should  pray  for  a  heart  willing  to  receive,  and 
a  will  ready  to  obey  all  the  commandments  of  our 
Heavenly  Master.  The  difficulty  with  many  persons  is 
not  so  much  that  they  cannot  understand  as  they  are 
unwilling  to  obey.  You  will,  I  fear,  find  it  much  easier 
to  satisfy  your  mind  that  immersion  is  the  only  scrip 
tural  baptism,  than  to  abandon  your  church  connec 
tions,  and  submit  to  be  baptized  according  to  the 
commandment  of  Jesus  Christ.  But  I  must  bid  you 
good-night.  It  is  time  I  was  at  home." 


WHICH  BEGINS  IN  THE  DAY,  AND  INCLUDES,  AMONG  OTHER 
STRANGE  THINGS, 

THE     PASTOR'S     PROOF 

THAT    IMMERSION    WAS    NOT    PRACTISED 
BY    THE    APOSTLES 

ANY  MORE  THAN  IT  HAD  BEEN  BY  JOHN. 

THE  BAPTISM  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 
THE  BAPTISM  OF  THE  THREE  THOUSAND. 


FOUKTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY. 

the  following  day,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Johnson  called 
at  Mrs.  Ernest's  cottage  soon  after  dinner.  Mrs. 
E.  was  delighted  with  this  evident  token  of  his 
interest  in  her  daughter's  welfare.  She  had  now 
given  up  all  hope  of  inducing  her  to  abandon 
the  investigation ;  and  was  only  anxious  to  get 
through  with  it  as  soon  as  possible.  Much  as  she  had 
disliked  Mr.  Courtney's  remarks  at  the  time  of  his  first 
call,  she  made  no  objection  to  the  second  visit ;  and 
even  went  so  far  as  to  ask  her  daughter  why  she  did  not 
invite  some  of  the  Baptists  to  meet  Mr.  Johnson  face  to 
face,  when  she  would  see  what  would  become  of  all  their 
hard  sayings  about  the  "  Ministers  of  our  church." 

"  That  little  Baptist  pedagogue,"  said  she,  "would no 
more  dare  to  say  such  things  as  he  did  about  Dr.  Barnes, 
and  Dr.  Chalmers,  and  Dr.  McKnight,  in  the  presence 
of  Mr.  Johnson,  than  he  would  to  put  his  head  into  the 
lion's  mouth.  He  finds  that  he  can  twist  you  and  Mr. 
Percy  about  his  thumb  just  as  he  pleases,  but  let  him 
come  where  Mr.  Johnson  is,  or  any  body  else  who  has 
studied  this  subject,  and  I'll  warrant  you  he  will  be  as 
mute  as  a  mouse." 

"Well,  Miss  Theodosia,"  said  the  pastor,  as  soon  as 
the  young  lady  came  in,  and  had  exchanged  with  him 
the  compliments  of  the  morning,  "  I  proved  to  you  last 
evening,  I  trust  beyond  the  shacloAV  of  a  doubt,  that 
John's  baptism  was  not  immersion.  And  now,  as  I 
have  an  hour  to  spare,  I  will,  if  you  can  give  me  your 
attention,  show  you  that  we  have  quite  as  good  ground 

(93) 


04  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

for  believing  that  the  Apostles  did  not  immerse  any 
more  than  John  did ;  and  that  in  fact  there  was  never 
any  such  a  thing  as  even  a  single  instance  of  immersion 
as  baptism  mentioned  in  the  sacred  Scriptures." 

(Theodosia  was  about  to  interrupt  him,  and  ask  some 
further  explanation  concerning  the  Greek  preposition 
"en"  and  the  English  preposition  "with;"  but  remem 
bering  the  "  Book  of  Divinity,"  and  thinking  it  safer  not 
to  seem  "wiser  than  her  teacher,"  she  continued  silent. 
He  went  on,  therefore,  in  blissful  ignorance  of  the  utter 
overthrow  of  all  the  beautiful  edifice  which  he  had  so 
ingeniously  erected  the  night  before.) 

"  Now  be  kind  enough  to  get  your  Bible,  and  turn  to 
Acts  i.  5." 

"Yes,  yes,  Mr.  Johnson,"  said  the  mother,  "that  is 
the  way  to  study  the  subject.  Show  it  to  her  in  the 
Bible  itself,  for  she  declares  she  won't  believe  a  single 
word  but  what  she  can  see  in  the  Bible  with  her  own 
eyes." 

"  Well,  then,  here  it  is ;  just  read  it,  my  child." 

Theodosia  read,  "  For  John  indeed  baptized  with 
water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
not  many  days  hence."  And  as  she  read,  she  could  not 
help  giving  the  passage,  in  her  mind,  the  true  rendering, 
"  John  indeed  immersed  you  in  water,"  etc. 

"You  see  from  this,"  resumed  the  pastor,  "that  not 
only  John  himself  said  that  he  baptized  with  water,  but 
that  Jesus  Christ  also  declared  the  same  thing.  But 
that  is  not  the  point  to  which  I  wish  now  to  direct  your 
attention.  We  settled  that  point  yesterday.  (Yes ! 
thought  Theodosia,  but  it  did  not  continue  settled.) 
What  I  want  you  to  notice  now  is  the  prophetic  declara 
tion  in  this  text :  '  Ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  not  many  days  hence.'  Now  turn  to  the  second 
chapter,  and  you  will  see  the  fulfilment  of  this  predic- 


FOURTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  95 

tion.  When  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come,  they 
were  all  with  one  accord  in  one  place,  and  then  and 
there  they  received  this  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Now  tell  me  how  this  baptism  was  performed.  Just 
read  the  17th  verse  and  you  will  see.  'And  it  shall 
come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  saith  (loci,  that  I  will 
pour  out  of  my  spirit,'  etc.  And  now  read  the  33d 
verse :  '  Therefore  being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  ex 
alted,  and  having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  shed  forth  this,  which  ye  now 
see  and  hear. '  Here  then  you  see  that  the  influences  of 
the  Spirit  are  called  a  baptism,  and  they  are  distinctly 
said  to  be  'poured  out,"1  and  to  be  'shed  forth.1  And 
from  this  it  follows,  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  baptism 
is  pouring  and  shedding  forth  or  sprinkling.  I  do  not 
see  how  it  is  possible  for  any  thing  to  be  clearer  or  more 
convincing  than  this." 

"  Certainly,"  exclaimed  Mrs.  Ernest,  the  mother ; 
"  that  must  convince  any  body  in  the  world.  I  should 
like  to  know  what  the  school-master  could  say  to  that. 
I  do  wish,  Mr.  Johnson,  you  would  preach  a  sermon  on 
this  subject,  and  just  set  the  matter  at  rest." 

"Pardon  me,  Mr.  Johnson,"  said  Theodosia,  "if  this 
argument  does  not  appear  so  conclusive  to  me  as  it 
seems  to  you.  I  was  reading  this  very  chapter  this 
morning,  and  the  same  difficulty  came  into  my  mind 
then  which  you  have  presented  now.  It  was  on  my 
mind  when  I  engaged  in  prayer,  and  it  was  not  until 
nearly  dinner  time  that  I  was  able  to  see  clearly  how  it 
could  be  that  baptism  is  immersion,  and  yet  the  Spirit 
be  said  to  be  poured  out  in  this  most  remarkable  bap 
tism.  Now  it  is  all  perfectly  plain." 

"  Well,  Miss  Ernest,  will  you  please  favor  us  with 
your  explanations  ?" 

"  Certainly,"  she  replied.     "  Mr.  Barnes,  in  his  Notes 


96  TIIEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

on  Matthew  xx.  29,  explains  baptism  in  suffering  and 
distress,  to  be  an  overwhelming  of  the  soul  with  great 
and  intense  afflictions.  'Are  you  able,'  he  says,  'to  be 
plunged  deep  in  afflictions,  and  to  have  sorrows  cover 
you  like  water,  and  to  be  sunk  beneath  calamities  as  a 
flood?'  Now  in  this  there  is  no  literal  immersion,  but 
the  sorrow  is  represented  as  covering  and  swallowing 
up  the  mind  as  water  does  the  body  in  the  act  of  bap 
tism.  It  is  a  metaphorical  but  not  a  real  baptism. 

"  So  in  the  case  before  us.  As  Christ  had  told  James 
and  John  that  they  should  be  immersed  or  overwhelmed 
by  sufferings  and  sorrows,  so  now  he  tells  all  the  disci 
ples  that  they  shall  in  a  few  days  be  immersed  or  over 
whelmed  by  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  That 
these  influences  should  cover,  overpower,  and  swallow 
up  their  minds,  as  the  water  in  baptism  did  their  bodies. 
It  is  no  more  a  literal  baptism  than  the  baptism  of  suf 
fering  in  Matthew.  It  is  a  metaphor ;  and  the  allusion  is 
not  to  the  act  done  in  baptism,  so  much  as  to  the  result  ; 
that  is,  the  swallowing  up  and  overwhelming  of  their 
minds  by  the  flood  of  life,  and  light,  and  joy,  and 
heavenly  influence  which  that  day  came  upon  their 
souls." 

If  the  mother  was  surprised  at  the  temerity  of  her 
daughter  in  venturing  to  differ  from  her  pastor  (to  her 
a  most  unheard-of  event),  yet  her  maternal  pride  was  so 
much  gratified  by  the  force  and  beauty  of  her  reasoning, 
that  she  could  not  be  angry,  and  there  was  even  a  smile 
— a  very  slight  smile  of  exultation,  which  crept  along 
the  curves  of  her  mouth,  as  her  daughter,  with  animated 
face,  and  a  new  and  strange  light  in  her  soul  illumining 
her  eyes,  entered  into  the  discussion ;  and  from  this 
time  forth  (though  she  was  determined  never  to  be  con 
vinced  that  her  pastor  was  or  could  be  wrong)  she  could 
not  help  feeling  secretly  gratified  whenever  her  daughter 


FOURTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  97 

had  the  best  of  the  argument ;  and  she  inwardly  enjoyed 
the  evident  amazement  and  perplexity  depicted  in  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Johnson's  face. 

He  was  amazed,  that  one  of  the  "  baptized  children 
of  his  church"  should  have  ventured  not  only  to  differ 
from  his  opinions,  so  forcibly  expressed,  but  even  to 
reason  with  him  out  of  the  Scriptures.  He  was  per 
plexed,  because  he  could  not,  for  the  moment,  see  what 
reply  he  could  successfully  make. 

"  Surely,  Mr.  Johnson,"  resumed  the  young  lady, 
after  a  moment's  pause,  "  you  do  not  imagine  that  there 
was  in  this  Pentecostal  baptism  any  real,  actual,  literal 
pouring  out  of  the  Spirit,  like  water  is  poured  out  of  a 
pitcher,  or  any  literal  sprinkling  of  the  Spirit,  as  the 
minister  sprinkles  the  water  off  from  the  ends  of  his 
fingers  ?" 

"  It  does  not  matter  at  all,"  he  replied,  "  whether  it 
was  literal  or  figurative,  actual  or  metaphorical,  the 
conclusion  must  be  the  same  in  any  case.  There  is  here 
clearly  a  baptism,  a  scriptural  baptism ;  a  baptism,  too, 
of  the  Gospel  dispensation ;  and  this  baptism  was  per 
formed  by  pouring.  Jesus  Christ  prophetically  foretold 
that  they  should  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and 
when  the  prophecy  was  fulfilled,  Peter  says  expressly 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  poured  out." 

"  But  he  does  not  say,  Mr.  Johnson,  that  the  pouring 
out  was  the  baptism.  The  Holy  Spirit  cannot  be  literally 
poured  out,  or  sprinkled  out,  nor  could  the  disciples  be 
literally  immersed  in  him,  any  more  than  they  had 
already  been ;  for  he  is,  and  always  was,  everywhere 
present,  and  had  always  surrounded  them  on  every  side. 
It  was  clearly  impossible,  therefore,  that  there  could  be 
any  literal  baptism,  in  any  sense  of  the  word,  by  sprink 
ling,  pouring,  or  immersion.  It  was  not  the  third  per 
son  of  the  trinity,  the  Divine  Spirit,  that  was  poured  out 
9 


98  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

and  shed  forth,  but  the  miraculous  and  wonderful  influ 
ences  of  the  spirit,  operating  on  the  hearts  and  minds 
of  the  disciples  and  others.  And  if  these  influences 
were  so  powerful,  and  so  universal,  as  to  surround  and 
overpower  the  minds  of  the  Apostles,  they  might  most 
beautifully  and  appropriately  be  said  to  be  immersed  in 
them.  The  baptism  of  the  spirit  is  a  soul  baptism,  not 
a  baptism  of  the  body ;  and  the  minds  of  the  disciples 
are  represented  by  Christ  as  about  to  be  taken  so  com 
pletely  into  the  control  and  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
that  they  would,  as  it  were,  be  immersed  in  it  and  swal 
lowed  up  by  it.  Such  a  baptism  actually  did  occur. 
The  minds  of  the  disciples  were  thus  overwhelmed  and 
swallowed  up  by  the  wonderful  influences  of  the  Spirit 
of  God ;  and  this  is  what,  it  seems  to  me,  was  intended 
by  Jesus,  when  he  said  they  would  be  immersed  in  the 
Holy  Ghost." 

"  Well,  as  to  that,"  rejoined  the  mother  (whose  heart 
had  begun  already  to  follow  her  daughter),  "I  can  see 
that  their  bodies  were  immersed  too,  as  well  as  their 
souls,  for  there  came  a  sound  as  of  a  rushing  mighty 
wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  house  where  they  were  sitting ; 
and  of  course  it  covered  them  all  up,  and  entirely  sur 
rounded  them,  and  they  were  in  this  way  immersed 
in  it." 

"  If  the  pouring,"  resumed  Theodosia,  encouraged  by 
this  open  expression  of  her  mother's  approval,  "  if  the 
pouring  had  any  thing  to  do  with  the  baptism  at  all,  it 
was  only  by  way  of  preparation ;  for  as  water  might  be 
poured  into  a  vessel  preparatory  to  immersing  any  ob 
ject  Or  person  in  it,  so  the  preparation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  for  these  wonderful  influences  might  be  here  called 
his  pouring  out,  as  such  preparation  is  sometimes  called 
a  coming  down,  or  an  entering  into,  or  a  springing  up." 

"  I  am  ready  to  admit,"  said  the  pastor,  "  that  these 


FOURTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  99 

Pentecostal  influences  were  called  a  baptism  by  Jesus 
Christ  only  in  a  figure.  I  hope  neither  of  you  think 
me  so  silly  as  to  be  capable  of  believing  that  the  per 
sonal  substance  (if  I  may  speak  so)  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
could  be  literally  poured  out  or  sprinkled.  But  while 
it  is  true  that  this  baptism  was  a  figure,  it  is  equally 
true  that  our  baptism  is  a  figure  also.  It  is  designed  to 
exhibit  in  an  emblematical  manner  the  cleansing  and 
purifying  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  our  hearts ; 
how  very  beautiful  and  appropriate  is  it,  therefore,  as 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  represented  as  being  figuratively 
poured  out  in  this  baptism,  that  the  water  which  repre 
sents  his  influences  should  be  actually  poured  out  on  us 
when  we  are  baptized." 

"  It  might  indeed,"  said  Theodosia,  "  have  been  a  very 
beautiful  and  appropriate  emblem,  and  had  our  Saviour 
thought  as  highly  of  it  as  you  do,  HE  probably  would 
have  appointed  it.  But  HE  seems  to  have  preferred  im 
mersion  in  water ;  and  this,  while  it  may  signify  the 
cleansing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  equally  well,  or  better  than 
the  other,  signifies  also  our  death  and  burial  to  sin,  and 
our  living  again  to  righteousness ;  and  it  is  thus  that 
Paul  explains  it  when  he  says,  '  we  are  Juried  with  him 
by  baptism  into  death,  that  as  Christ  was  raised  from 
the  dead,  so  we  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.'  It 
serves  also  to  remind  us  of  the  burial  and  resurrection 
of  Jesus,  and  prefigures  also  our  own  coming  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection." 

"  What  Baptist  book  have  you  been  reading  to  learn 
all  that?" 

"  I  found  it,  Mr.  Johnson,  in  a  Presbyterian  book ;  in 
the  Notes  of  Dr.  James  McKnight  on  the  6th  of 
Roman,s.  I  have  never  read  any  Baptist  book  in  my 
life,  unless  (as  I  greatly  suspect)  the  Bible  is  a  Baptist 
book." 


100  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

"I  fear — I  greatly  fear,  my  chil.d,"  rejoined  the  pas 
tor,  "  that  you  are  running  into  very  serious  and  alarm 
ing  errors.  I  have  exhorted  you,  and  reasoned  with  you, 
but  I  fear  my  labors  have  been  almost  in  vain.  And 
now,  before  I  take  my  leave,  I  feel  it  my  duty  solemnly 
to  warn  you  before  God,  to  take  heed  whei*e  you  are 
going.  I  should  be  greatly  pained,  if  we  should  find  it 
necessary  to  expel  you  from  the  church." 

"  Expel  me  from  the  church !  Why,  Mr.  Johnson, 
what  do  you  mean  ?  Have  I  been  guilty  of  any  im 
proper  conduct  ?  What  have  I  done  ?" 

"  Nothing  as  yet,  my  child.  I  am  happy  to  say,  you 
have  always  been  a  faithful  and  consistent  communicant 
since  you  first  approached  the  table  of  the  Lord.  But 
now  I  find  you  growing  wayward  and  self-willed,  whereas, 
the  Scripture  says,  '  be  not  high-minded,  but  fear — and 
be  in  subjection  to  those  who  have  the  rule  over  you  in 
the  Lord.'  As  yet,  you  have  only  imbibed  some  false 
and  injurious  notions  on  the  subject  of  one  of  the  ordi 
nances  of  the  church.  So  far,  this  has  not  led  you  to 
any  overt  act  of  evil  which  could  subject  you  to  the  dis 
cipline  of  the  church,  but  if  you  persevere  in  this  way, 
and  especially,  if  by  your  conduct  and  conversation  you 
lead  others  to  distrust  the  purity  of  our  doctrines,  the 
propriety  of  our  practice,  and  validity  of  our  ordinances, 
it  will  become  our  painful  duty  to  deal  with  you  as  a 
disturber  of  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  church." 

The  pastor  uttered  this  significant  warning  with  all 
due  solemnity  of  countenance  and  impressiveness  of 
manner,  but  it  did  not  have  the  effect  upon  the  young 
lady  which  he  had  expected.  A  week  before  this  time 
she  would  have  heard  it  with  very  different  emotions. 
Now  she  had  not  only  learned  to  fear  God  rather  than 
man,  but  she  had,  upon  her  bended  knees,  solemnly  re 
solved  before  her  Maker  and  Redeemer  that,  in  regard 


FOURTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  101 

to  this  subject,  she  would  both  learn  and  do  her  whole 
duty,  whatever  it  might  cost  her. 

This  was  indeed  an  unexpected,  and,  to  her  sensitive 
spirit,  a  most  terrible  test  of  the  sincerity  and  firmness 
of  that  resolution,  but  it  did  not  cause  her  to  waver 
even  for  one  moment. 

She  did,  indeed,  turn  deathly  pale.  Her  chin 
quivered,  and  the  light  for  a  moment  went  out  in  her 
eye.  It  was  but  for  a  moment,  however,  and  before  he 
had  completed  the  speech,  the  blood  had  come  back  to 
her  face,  and  her  eyes  were  suffused  with  tears,  which, 
however,  did  not  overflow ;  and  perfect  collectedness 
of  mind  and  calmness  of  manner,  though  with  a 
scarcely  perceptible  tremulousness  of  voice,  she  mildly 
replied : 

"  If  it  was  your  purpose,  Mr.  Johnson,  to  deter  me 
from  making  a  conscientious  and  complete  investigation 
of  this  subject,  and  then  governing  my  conduct  by  the 
written  word  of  God,  I  beg  you  will  remember  that  you 
have  yourself  instructed  me  that  I  ought  to  obey  God 
rather  than  man — and  this,  God  helping  me,  I  mean  to 
do,  whatever  may  be  the  consequences  to  me  or  others." 

"  No,  no,  my  child,  you  do  not  understand  me.  I 
desire  you  should  be  governed  by  the  word  of  God ; 
but  I  would  have  you  remember  that  God  has  given 
you  teachers  to  help  you  to  a  true  understanding  of  his 
word.  It  is  for  this  purpose  that  he  has  appointed  us 
his  ministers,  to  guide  the  young,  instruct  the  ignorant, 
and  make  known  to  all  what  are  the  teachings  of  that 
word." 

"  But  what  if  our  ministers  should  chance  to  dis 
agree  ?  Am  I  to  remain  all  my  life  in  doubt,  or  take 
the  matter  into  my  own  hands  and  decide  for  myself? 
Will  the  ministers  answer  for  me  in  the  day  of  judg 
ment  ?  You  tell  me,  Mr.  Johnson,  that  Jesus  Christ 


102  THEODOSIA    EKNKST. 

was  sprinkled,  but  James  McK  night,  another  eminent 
minister  of  our  own  church,  a  Doctor  of  Divinity,  and 
for  twenty  years  the  Moderator  of  the  General  Assem 
bly  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in  the  country  where  he 
lived,  tells  me  '  that  Jesus  submitted  to  be  baptized,  that 
is,  to  be  put  under  the  water  and  taken  out  again  by 
John ;'  and  Dr.  Chalmers,  another  most  eminent  minis 
ter  of  our  church,  tells  me  '  that  the  meaning  of  the  word 
baptism  is  immersion;  Martin  Luther,  the  great  re 
former,  says  expressly,  that  it  was  immersion  which 
was,  'without  doubt,  instituted  by  Christ ;'  and  John  Cal 
vin,  the  father  and  founder  of  our  Presbyterian  church, 
distinctly  states  that  '  the  word  baptize  signifies  to  im 
merse,  and  the  rite  of  immersion  was  practiced  by  the 
ancient  church  /' '; 

"  Yes,  my  child,  but  then  do  not  all  these  great  and 
good  men,  at  the  same  time  assure  you  that  it  is  a  mat 
ter  of  no  importance  which  way  the  rite  is  performed  ?" 

"  They  do,  indeed ;  but  that  is  only  their  own  private 
or  individual  opinion.  They  don't  even  pretend  that 
the  word  of  God  teaches  that  it  is  of  no  consequence 
whether  we  do  what  Christ  commanded  or  not.  I 
cannot  think,  like  Dr.  Chalmers,  that  it  is  a  '  matter  of 
indifferency,'  or  like  Calvin,  that  '  it  is  of  no  conse 
quence  at  all.'  I  dare  not  set  aside  the  commandments 
of  Christ  for  the  doctrines  of  men ;  and  if  you  will 
pardon  me  for  saying  it,  I  do  not  see  how  any  minister 
of  Jesus  Christ  can  dare  to  teach  such  sentiments.  If 
Jesus  Christ  commanded  us  to  believe  and  be  im 
mersed,  I  surely  did  not  obey  that  command  by  being 
sprinkled. 

"  Pardon  me,  Mr.  Johnson,  for  talking  so  plainly, 
but  you  have  driven  me  to  it.  You  promised,  this 
evening,  to  show  me,  out  of  the  Scriptures,  that  the 
baptism  of  the  Gospel  dispensation  was  sprinkling, 


FOURTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  103 

and  all  you  have  done  was  to  show  me  where  the  Holy 
Ghost  was,  by  a  figure  of  speech,  said  to  be  poured  out 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  where  Christ  had 
prophetically  declared  that  they  should,  in  some  sense, 
that  day  he  metaphorically  immersed  in  the  Holy  Spirit 
— for  you  do  not  pretend  that  it  was  more  than  a  mys 
tical  and  figurative  baptism  which  the  Saviour  foretold. 
You  did  not,  and  you  cannot  prove,  that  this  prophecy 
referred  to  the  preparatory  '  pouring  out'  any  more 
than  to  any  of  the  wonderful  influences  that  follow  the 
outpouring. 

"  Now  I  had  learned  from  ministers  of  our  own  church, 
from  Calvin  and  Chalmers,  and  as  directed  by  Mr. 
Barnes,  from  the  word  of  God  itself,  that  the  meaning 
of  the  word  is  a  dipping  or  immersion.  I  knew  that 
when  Jesus  was  baptized  it  was  done  in  the  river,  as 
immersions  are  now  performed.  And  that  when  the 
Eunuch  was  baptized  they  went  down  into  the  water, 
and  when  the  solemn  rite  was  done,  they  came  up  out 
of  the  water,  just  as  they  do  in  immersions  now.  I  knew 
that  Paul  called  our  baptism  a  burial.  And  that  our 
own  ministers,  as  Chalmers  and  McKnight,  explained 
this  as  an  allusion  to  the  custom  of  the  first  Church,  of 
baptizing  by  immersion,  and  because,  in  the  face  of  all 
this  visible  and  tangible  evidence  that  the  real  and 
literal  baptism  submitted  to,  and  commanded  by  Christ, 
and  practiced  by  the  apostles  in  the  first  church,  was 
immersion,  I  could  not,  on  the  authority  of  a  mere 
figure  of  speech,  and  that  of  doubtful  application,  be 
lieve  it  to  have  been  pouring,  you  tell  me  I  am  wayward 
and  self-willed,  and  intimate  that  I  may  expect  soon  to 
be  dealt  with  as  a  disturber  of  the  peace  and  unity  of  the 
church." 

"I  think,  Mr.  Johnson,"  said  the  mother,  "that  you 
...cere  a  little  too  hard  on  Theodosia  about  that.  I  never 


104  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

could  myself  see  much  force  in  these  figures  of  speech 
or  metaphors  as  Theodosia  calls  them." 

"Why,  mother,"  resumed  the  young  lady,  "if  Mr. 
Johnson  will  let  me  reason  in  the  same  way  that  he 
does,  I  will  prove  to  him  that  the  poor  little  boy  of 
whom  we  were  reading  this  morning,  that  was  drowned 
in  the  river,  was  actually  drowned  on  dry  land  by  a  few 
drops  of  water  sprinkled  on  his  face." 

"  I  don't  see  how,  my  daughter ;  but  here  is  the  paper 
containing  the  account  of  the  accident.  I  would  like  to 
hear  you  try." 

"  '  MELANCHOLY  ACCIDENT. 

"  '  It  is  our  painful  duty  to  announce  that  little  Char 
lie  Freeman,  a  sprightly  lad  about  nine  years  old,  of  a 
most  lovely  disposition  and  extraordinary  promise,  the 
only  son  of  his  mother,  and  she  a  widow,  was  accident 
ally  drowned  this  morning  in  the  Cumberland  river. 
We  were  one  of  those  who  recovered  the  body  and  bore 
it  to  the  dwelling  of  the  now  doubly-bereaved  mother. 
We  cannot  describe  the  sorrow  with  which  this  sad 
event  has  filled  our  hearts.  We  have  just  left  the 
melancholy  scene,  where  the  heart-broken  mother  is 
sitting  in  the  midst  of  a  large  circle  of  friends  who  are 
all  drowned  in  tears.' 

"  Now,  Mr.  Johnson  tells  me  that  the  disciples,  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  were  figuratively  or  metaphorically 
baptized  by  pouring,  and  if  so,  then  he  asks  me  to  be 
lieve  that  Jesus  Christ  must  have  been  literally  and 
actually  baptized  in  the  same  way,  that  is,  by  pouring, 
in  the  river  Jordan.  This  is  the  whole  argument.  Now 
I  say  here  was  a  large  circle  of  this  poor  lady's  friends 
who  were  metaphorically  said  to  be  drowned  in  a  little 
water  running  down  their  faces  out  of  their  own  eyes ; 
and  if  so,  then  the  dear  little  boy  must  have  been  actu- 


FOURTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  105 

ally  and  literally  drowned  by  a  few  drops  of  water  run 
ning  down  his  face." 

"  But  you  forget,"  said  tlie  pastor,  "  that  the  lad  was 
said  to  be  drowned  in  the  river." 

"Not  at  all,"  she  replied,  "for  so  also  Jesus  Christ 
is  said  to  have  been  baptized  in  the  river  ;  but  you  try 
to  persuade  me  that  he  only  stood  upon  the  bank,  and 
John  took  up  some  of  the  water  of  the  river,  and 
sprinkled  it  on  his  face.  And  some  of  our  writers  tell 
me  that  he  might  have  gone  a  few  steps  into  the  water, 
and  there,  standing  in  the  river,  John  took  up  a  little 
water  and  poured  it  on  his  head  out  of  a  muscle  shell, 
or  a  cup.  So  I  will  grant  that  this  poor  little  lad  may 
have  gone  to  the  bank  of  the  river,  and  that  some  of  the 
water  of  the  river  was  thus  splashed  up  into  his  face  ; 
or  that  he  waded  in  a  little  way,  and  some  other  boy  did 
the  same,  took  up  some  water  with  his  hand,  and  threw 
it  in  his  face — but  that  he  must  have  been  drowned  by  a 
little  water  running  aver  his  face,  is  perfectly  self-evi 
dent,  for  this  is  the  only  way  in  which  the  large  circle 
of  his  mother's  friends  could  have  been  drowned." 

"  I  see,"  rejoined  the  pastor,  "  that  your  mind  is 
already  made  up,  and  it  is  scarcely  worth  while  to  argue 
the  subject  with  you  any  further.  You  have  determined 
that  you  will  not  be  convinced.  But  before  I  leave  you 
to-day,  I  will  suggest  one  more  point  for  your  con 
sideration,  which,  if  you  are  not  already  hardened  in 
unbelief,  can  hardly  fail  to  satisfy  you." 

"  Oh  no,  Mr.  Johnson,  I  am  ready  and  anxious  to  be 
convinced.  What  have  I  to  gain  by  believing  that  im 
mersion  is  the  only  baptism  ?  You  have  already  inti 
mated  what  I  may  expect  from  you  and  from  the  church 
which  I  have  loved  so  dearly.  I  fear  I  have  already  lost 
in  part  the  affection  of  my  precious  mother" — and  her 
eyes  filled  with  tears. 


106  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

"  No,  my  daughter,"  said  Mrs.  Ernest,  "you  have  not 
lost  my  love,  and  I  will  love  you  still,  do  what  you  may. 
I  know  you  are  a  dear,  good,  conscientious  child,  and 
would  not  for  the  world  do  what  you  did  not  believe  to 
be  right.  If  you  leave  us,  my  child,  I  can't  help  mourn 
ing  over  you,  but  I  will  love  you  still.  But  do  listen  to 
Mr.  Johnson,  my  darling,  and  see  if  he  can't  convince 
you." 

"  Certainly,  mother ;  if  Mr.  Johnson  will  show  me  one 
single  place  in  the  Word  of  God  where  baptism  is  called 
sprinkling  or  pouring  (not  in  the  way  of  a  metaphor  or 
a  figure,  but  literally  and  plainly),  I  will  be  content. 
If  he  will  show  one  single  instance  in  which  baptism  is 
plainly  said  to  have  been  done  by  sprinkling  or  pour 
ing — not  dimly  and  metaphorically,  as  those  good  ladies 
were  drowned  in  tears,  but  actually  and  really,  as  the 
dear  child  was  drowned  in  the  river — I  will  ask  for 
nothing  more.  But  till  he  can  show  it  to  me  in  the  Bible, 
I  can't  believe  that  it  is  there." 

"As  to  that,"  said  the  pastor,  "  I  can  show  you  sprink 
ling  and  pouring  oftener  than  I  can  immersion,  for  there 
is  no  such  word  as  immersion  used  in  the  whole  book." 

"  I  know,"  said  she,  "  that  sprinkling  and  pouring  are 
mentioned  often  enough,  but  not  as  baptism ;  what  I 
want  is  the  place  where  they  are  literally  said  to  be. 
actual  baptism.  I  know  that  immerse  does  not  occur  in 
our  version,  because  dip  is  generally  used  where  the 
word  baptize  occurs ;  but  if  ftopfa'sm  means  immersion, 
as  Calvin,  McKnight,  Chalmers,  and  others  of  our  min 
isters  say  it  does,  and  as  the  lexicons  of  the  Greek  lan 
guage  say  it  does,  then  immerse  occurs,  in  fact,  every 
time  baptize  occurs." 

"  Well,  well,  I  see  you  are  not  to  be  easily  satisfied 
on  this  point ;  and  I  have  no  more  time  to  spare  to-day. 
I  was  about  to  direct  your  attention  to  another  argu- 


FOURTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  107 

mcnt  in  this  same  chapter,  which  will,  I  -trust,  set  your 
mind  at  rest  forever. 

"  You  see  here  that  there  were  no  less  than  three 
thousand  souls  converted  by  Peter's  sermon  ;  and  all 
this  vast  multitude  were  added  to  the  church  that  very 
day.  Now  it  is  clearly  impossible  that  they  could  have 
been  baptized  by  immersion,  and,  therefore,  it  must 
have  been  done  by  sprinkling  or  pouring ;  and  if  so, 
then  sprinkling  and  pouring  must  be  the  Gospel  bap 
tism.  I  consider  this  argument  entirely  conclusive.  I 
want  you  to  examine  the  record  of  the  transaction  care 
fully  and  candidly,  and  if  you  can  believe  that  these 
three  thousand  people  were  all  immersed,  you  can  believe 
almost  any  thing.  I  will  call  again  next  week,  and  you 
can  tell  me  what  you  think  of  it." 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Johnson,  as  he  was  saying  this,  arose 
and  took  up  his  hat  to  depart. 

"  Please  tell  me  one  thing  before  you  go,"  said  Theo- 
dosia.  "  You  said  it  was  impossible  that  these  three 
thousand  persons  could  have  been  immersed.  Please 
tell  me  why." 

"  For  two  good  and  sufficient  reasons,"  he  replied. 
"  In  the  first  place,  there  was  not  water  enough ;  and, 
in  the  second  place,  there  was  not  time  enough.  And 
either  one  of  these  circumstances  was  clearly  sufficient 
to  render  immersion  impossible.  We  will  not  discuss 
the  subject  any  farther  at  present.  Examine  it  at  your 
leisure,  and  I  trust,  when  I  see  you  again,  I  will  find 
your  mind  entirely  satisfied.  For  the  present,  I  must 
bid  you  good  evening." 

Mr.  Johnson  walked  home,  thinking  what  strange 
perversity  it  was  in  a  young  girl  to  venture  to  form  an 
independent  opinion  on  a  theological  subject,  and  to 
question  the  infallibility  of  his  reiterated  assertions, 


108  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

and  even  to  undertake  to  argue  the  matter  with  her 
pastor. 

The  young  lady  took  her  Bible,  and  began  to  examine 
again  the  passages  to  which  the  pastor  had  referred  in 
their  conversation ;  but  before  she  had  made  much 
progress,  her  mother  required  her  assistance  in  some 
household  duties,  which  occupied  her  attention  till  after 
supper. 

Scarcely  was  supper  over,  and  the  table  cleared  away, 
when  who  should  come  in  but  her  UNCLE  JONES. 

"  Well,  Theo.,"  said  he,  in  his  unceremonious  way, 
"  I  am  told  that  I  am  about  to  lose  my  niece,  and  that 
you  are  on  the  point  of  turning  Baptist." 

"  Oh,  uncle,  don't  say  that !  I  shall  not  be  lost  to 
you  or  any  of  those  I  love,  even  though  I  should  feel  it 
my  duty  to  be  baptized.  I  will  still  be  your  own  niece, 
and  love  you  as  well  as  ever." 

"  You  will !  Then  your  mind  is  about  made  up  on 
the  subject,  I  suppose  ?" 

"  Very  nearly,  uncle.  I  have  some  other  points  yet 
to  examine,  which  were  suggested  by  pastor  Johnson 
this  afternoon,  and  unless  I  find  them  more " 

"  Some  other  points  to  examine  !  Suggested  by  the 
pastor !  Do  you,  then,  undertake  to  differ  with  your 
pastor ;  and  talk  about  deciding  for  yourself  in  regard 
to  one  of  the  most  difficult  and  complicated  questions  in 
theology  ?" 

"  Oh,  please,  uncle,  don't  be  angry ;  and  don't  laugh 
at  me.  I  know  I  am  only  a  poor  simple  girl,  but  I  am 
accountable  only  to  God,  and  must  be  decided  by  my 
own  understanding  of  his  Word.  What  I  can't  find  in 
the  Scripture  for  myself,  I  can't  be  sure  is  there.  If  I 
don't  examine  for  myself,  how  can  I  know  any  thing 
about  it  ?» 

"  Can't  you  take  your  pastor's  word  for  it  ?" 


FOURTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  109 

"Yes,  if  he  will  show  me  a  'thus  saith  the  Lord,'  as 
his  authority." 

"  But  can't  you  take  it  for  granted  that  he  has  such 
authority,  without  his  pointing  to  the  chapter  and  the 
verse?" 

"It  is  God's  Word,  uncle,  that  I  must  obey,  not  man's. 
If  it  is  iu  the  Book,  he  can't  object  to  showing  me  where 
it  is.  I  want  to  see  it  for  myself.  The  Apostle  praised 
the  Bereans,  not  because  they  took  Paul's  word  for 
all  he  said,  but  because  '  they  searched  the  Scriptures' 
for  themselves  'to  see  whether  these  things  were  so.'  " 

"  But  what  if  you  come  to  a  different  conclusion  from 
the  pastor  ?  Do  3rou  think  it  will  be  wise  to  trust  your 
own  judgment,  rather  than  that  of  the  many  great,  and 
good,  and  learned  men  of  our  church,  who  have  exam 
ined  this  subject  more  thoroughly,  and  under  much  more 
favorable  circumstances,  than  you  can  hope  to  do  ?  Do 
you  think  it  will  be  indicative  of  the  humility  required 
by  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  a  simple  girl  not  yet 
out  of  her  teens,  and  without  any  theological  education, 
to  set  up  her  own  opinions  against  those  of  the  wisest 
and  best  men  of  the  age  ?" 

"  No,  uncle,  I  don't  intend  to  set  up  my  opinions 
against  those  of  the  great  and  good  men  you  speak  of. 
But  I  find  that  others,  equally  great  and  good  men, 
after  a  careful  examination  of  the  subject,  have  come  to 
a  different  conclusion ;  and  that  some  of  these  same 
Doctors  of  Divinity  in  our  church,  while  they  practice 
one  thing,  and  instruct  us  to  do  it,  yet  expressly  declare 
that  it  was  another  and  a  very  different  thing  which 
Christ  commanded  and  the  first  Christians  practiced. 
Now  'when  the  doctors  disagree,' not  only  with  each 
other,  but  with  themselves,  what  is  a  poor,  simple  girl 
like  me  to  do  ?  I  can't  study  theology,  but  I  can  study 
the  Bible.  If  sprinkling,  as  baptism,  is  there,  I  can  see 
10 


110  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

it.  Pastor  Johnson  says  it  is  there ;  other  learned  theo 
logians  say  it  is  not.  What  can  I  do  ?  I  say  to  each 
of  them,  if  sprinkling  is  commanded,  show  me  where  ;  if 
pouring  is  commanded,  point  out  the  place ;  if  dipping 
is  commanded,  let  me  see  it  for  myself.  If  I  can't  find 
it,  and  you  can't  show  it  to  me,  I  won't  believe  it's  in 
the  book  at  all.  I  hope,  uncle,  you  don't  really  think 
that  I  am  proud  or  egotistical ;  I  only  want  to  know 
just  what  my  Saviour  requires.  I  will  believe  any 
thing,  and  do  any  thing,  if  yon  will  only  show  me  that 
he  has  said  it  or  commanded  it." 

"  No,  my  dear  child,  I  don't  think  you  are  egotistical 
or  proud.  I  admire  your  independence,  and  I  wish 
every  person,  in  every  place,  would  in  the  same  way 
search  the  Scriptures,  and  understand  perfectly  the 
grounds  on  which  their  faith  and  practice  rests.  It  is 
not  only  the  privilege,  but  the  duty  of  ever}r  person,  to 
examine  and  decide  for  themselves  personally,  what  the 
Word  of  God  requires.  Religion  is  a  personal  thing.  It 
requires  personal  obedience — and  that,  too,  of  the  heart, 
which  cannot  be  rendered  without  some  degree  of  per 
sonal  understanding  of  the  Word.  If  you  trust  your 
conscience  in  any  man's  keeping,  you  place  yourself  in 
a  dangerous  condition.  I  am  rejoiced  to  see  you  study 
ing  this  subject  for  yourself.  And  indeed  I  was  only 
trying  your  courage  a  little,  when  I  affected  to  be  sur 
prised  at  your  doing  so.  But  seriously,  my  dear  Theo., 
why  did  you  not  come  to  your  uncle  with  your  diffi 
culties  ?" 

"  I  did  intend  to  consult  you,  uncle,  before  my  final 
decision,  but  the  question  came  up  so  unexpectedly,  and 
our  investigation  has  gone  on  so  rapidly,  that  I  have 
not  yet  had  any  very  convenient  opportunity  ;  and  be 
sides,  uncle,  to  tell  the  truth,  I  was  afraid  you  would 
either  be  angry,  or  laugh  at  me." 


FOURTH    NIGHT'S   STUDY.  Ill 

"  You  were !  Well,  then,  I  will  disappoint  you,  for 
so  far  from  laughing  at  you,  I  consider  it  a  very  serious 
and  most  important  question  ;  and  instead  of  being 
angry  with  you,  it  will  give  me  great  pleasure  to  assist 
you  in  the  investigation ;  and  if  I  can't  show  you  the 
sprinkling  baptism  in  the  Bible,  I  will  be  immersed 
myself.  I  will  not  be  like  those  Doctors  of  Divinit}' 
you  spoke  of,  who  say  one  thing  and  practice  another. 
If  Jesus  Christ  did  not  command  sprinkling,  I  for  one 
will  neither  teach  nor  practice  it.  I  have  felt  for  some 
time  that  it  was  my  own  duty  to  investigate  this  sub 
ject,  and  I  will  do  it  now — and  with  your  assistance." 

"  Oh,  uncle,  don't  talk  of  my  assistance.  I  am  but  an 
ignorant,  though  anxious  inquirer  after  the  truth,  and 
am  obliged  to  call  for  help  on  others  at  every  step.  If 
I  should  speak  of  rendering  assistance  to  you,  I  should 
indeed  deserve  to  be  called  proud  and  egotistical." 

"  Well,  well ;  any  way,  my  child.  If  you  won't  help 
me,  I  will  help  you.  Tell  me  just  how  far  you  have  got 
along,  what  discoveries  you  have  made,  and  where  you 
are  standing  now — and  then  we  will  consider  of  the  rest." 

"  It  will  be  too  long  a  story,  uncle,  to  go  over  all  the 
road  that  I  have  traveled.  But  I  have  learned  that 
there  is  '  one  Lord,  one  faith,  and  ONE  BAPTISM.'  I 
have  been  inquiring  whether  that  baptism  is  sprinkling, 
or  pouring,  or  dipping.  I  have  discovered  that  baptize, 
as  it  is  used  in  the  New  Testament,  is  a  Greek  word, 
and  must  be  understood  as  those  who  read  and  spoke 
the  Greek  language  in  our  Saviour's  time  would  under 
stand  it.  Dr.  Albert  Barnes  told  me  I  could  learn  this 
by  examining  the  fifteen  places  where,  he  says,  the  word 
occurs  in  the  Old  Testament.  I  hunted  out  each  place, 
and  found  it  meant  'to  dip.'  I  looked  in  Webster's 
dictionary,  and  found  that  to  dip  in  water,  was  to  plunge 
an  object  into  the  fluid  and  instantly  take  it  out  again — 


112  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

the  very  act  which  the  Baptists  perform  when  they  bap 
tize.  I  got  Edwin  to  look  in  his  Greek  Lexicon,  and  he 
found  that  the  word  had  the  same  meaning  there — that 
baptism  was  immersion.  I  read  McKnight  and  Chal 
mers  on  the  6th  of  Romans,  and  found  that  these  great 
Doctors  of  Divinity  in  the  Presbyterian  church  agreed 
in  declaring  the  same  thing ;  and  further,  that  it  was 
immersion  that  was  practiced  by  the  lirst  church.  1  am 
told  that  Luther,  and  Calvin,  and  Doddridgc,  and  a 
great  many  others  of  the  most  eminent  of  our  theo 
logians,  teach  the  same  things.  And  I  have  not  yet 
found  in  the  Word  of  God  a  single  passage  which  leads 
me  to  any  different  conclusion.  Unless,  therefore,  I 
should  find,  as  pastor  Johnson  assures  me  I  shall,  that 
it  was  clearly  impossible  to  immerse  the  three  thousand 
that  were  added  to  the  church  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
I  must  be  convinced." 

"  On  what  ground  does  your  pastor  think  it  impos 
sible  ?" 

"  He  says  there  was  neither  water  enough,  nor  time 
enough." 

"  Well,  how  can  you  prove  that  there  was  ?" 

"  It  don't  seem  to  me,  uncle,  that  it  is  necessary  that 
I  should  be  able  to  prove  it  in  any  other  way  than  by 
the  mere  statement  of  the  Scripture  that  they  were  bap 
tized  ;  for  if  the  word  baptize  means  to  immerse,  then 
the  book  says  they  were  immersed ;  and  if  they  were 
immersed,  there  must  have  been  time  enough,  and  water 
enough,  whether  I  can  prove  it  or  not.  If  I  do  not  be 
lieve  this,  I  make  God  a  liar." 

"  But  what  if  it  can  be  clearly  shown  that  there  was 
not  water  enough,  or  time  enough ;  then  would  it  not  be 
more  reasonable  to  suppose  the  word  has  some  other 
meaning,  than  to  believe  the  record  to  be  false?" 

"  Perhaps  it  would,  but  the  pastor  only  said  it.     He 


FOURTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  113 

did  not  try  to  prove  it.  Nor  do  I  see  how  it  would  be 
possible  now  to  determine  how  much  water  there  was  in 
Jerusalem  eighteen  hundred  years  ago,  even  if  we  knew 
the  exact  number  of  gallons  it  would  require  to  immerse 
three  thousand  people.  I  remember  that  we  read  in 
2  Kings  xviii.  IT,  about  the  '  upper  pool ,'  and  in  2  Kings 
xx.  20,  about  the  '  pool'  that  Hezekiah  made,  and  in 
Nchemiah  about  another  'fountain?  and  'pool,'  and  in 
Isaiah  xxii.  9,  about  the  'waters  of  the  lower  pool,'  and 
in  John  v.  2,  about  the  '  pool  of  Bethesda'  that  had  five 
porches,  and  John  ix.  T,  about  the  'pool  of  Siloam.'" 

"  I  think  the  pastor  will  be  obliged  to  give  it  up, 
Theo.,  so  far  as  the  want  of  water  is  concerned ;  for  in 
addition  to  this  testimony  from  the  Scripture,  we  have 
that  of  many  distinguished  travelers,  who  were,  like  our 
selves,  opposed  to  the  Baptists  ;  and  yet  all  agree  that 
Jerusalem  was,  and  is,  one  of  the  best  watered  cities  on 
the  globe.  Dr.  Robinson,  one  of  these  travelers,  speaks 
of  '  immense  cisterns  now,  and  anciently,  existing  within 
the  area  of  the  Temple,  supplied  partly  from  rain  water, 
and  partly  by  the  aqueduct,'  and  tells  us  also  that 
'  almost  every  private  house  had  a  cistern  in  it,'  p.  480. 
Speaking  of  the  reservoirs,  he  says,  p.  483 — '  With  such 
reservoirs,  Jerusalem  was  abundantly  supplied,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  immense  pools  of  Solomon,  beyond  Beth 
lehem,  which  were  no  doubt  constructed  for  the  benefit 
of  the  Holy  City.' 

"  '  There  are,'  he  says,  '  on  the  north  side  of  the  city, 
outside  the  walls,  two  very  large  reservoirs,  one  of 
which  is  over  three  hundred  feet  long  and  more  than  two 
hundred  feet  wide,  and "  the  other  nearly  six  hundred 
feet  long  by  over  two  hundred  and  fifty  feet  wide ;'  and 
besides  these  he  mentions  the  pool  of  Silom  and  two 
others  as  being  without  the  walls.  Within  the  walls  he 
mentions  'the  pool  of  Bathsheba,'  'the  pool  of  Heze- 


114  THEOUOSIA    ERNEST. 

kiah,'  and  'the  pool  of  Bethesda.'  The  pool  of 
Hezekiah  he  says  was  about  two  hundred  and  forty  feet 
long  by  about  one  hundred  and  fortj^-four  feet  broad ; 
the  pool  of  Bethesda  three  hundred  and  sixty  feet  long 
by  one  hundred  and  thirty  feet  wide ;  and  besides  these 
he  mentions  an  aqueduct  and  numerous  other  fountains. 
(Rob.  Resh.  in  Pal.  pp.  480  to  516.) 

"  But  we  might  have  known,  without  any  of  this 
testimony,  that  a  city  to  which  the  whole  male  popula 
tion  of  a  vast  and  fertile  country  were  required  to 
resort  several  times  a  year,  and  whose  religious  cere 
monial  required  such  frequent  ablutions  as  did  that 
of  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ,  would  be  abundantly 
furnished  with  the  means  of  bathing,  and  consequently 
present  sufficient  facilities  for  immersion.  Moreover, 
the  water  would  not  be  destroyed  by  dipping  in  it ;  and 
therefore  the  same  quantity  that  would  suffice  for  one 
would  do  for  a  hundred.  And  it  is  evident  that  so  far 
as  the  water  is  concerned,  any  one  of  these  numerous 
pools,  either  in  or  out  of  the  city,  would  have  sufficed. 
But  was  there  not  another  and  more  serious  difficulty  ? 
These  pools  and  fountains  belonged  to  the  Jews.  The 
same  men  who  hated  and  crucified  Christ  now  had  con 
trol  of  the  water  of  the  city  and  the  suburbs,  and  is  it 
probable  that  they  would  permit  the  disciples  to  use 
them  ?» 

"  Certainly  they  would,"  said  Theodosia,  "  for  in  con 
sequence  of  the  wonderful  events  of  this  day,  the 
Scripture  says  that  'fear  came  upon  every  soul,'  and 
that  the  disciples  '  did  eat  their  meat  with  gladness 
and  singleness  of  heart,  praising  God  and  having  favor 
with  all  the  people.'  They  gave  them  the  Temple  to 
preach  in,  and  it  is  not  likely  that  they  would  refuse  the 
pools  to  baptize  in." 

"  Surely,"  said  Uncle  Jones,  "  that  must  remove  all 


FOURTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  115 

conceivable  difficulty  as  to  the  water ;  but  we  may  not 
find  it  so  easy  to  arrange  matters  in  regard  to  time. 
Time  has  always  been  a  very  unaccommodating  old 
fellow ;  and  a  day  among  the  Jews  was  only  twelve 
hours,  from  six  in  the  morning  till  six  at  night,  and  if  we 
can't  get  the  three  thousand  into  the  water  within  that 
period,  we  shall  be  obliged  to  leave  some  or  all  of  them 
out,  and  dispose  of  them  in  some  other  way." 

"  Well,  uncle,  I  don't  see  why  we  can't  dispose  of  some 
of  them  in  some  other  way,  for  the  Scripture  does  not 
say  they  were  all  baptized  that  day,  but  only  all  added 
to  the  company  of  the  disciples ;  and  some  of  them 
may  have  been  baptized  by  John  or  by  the  disciples  of 
Jesus  Christ  before  his  death,  and  now  only  come  out  pub 
licly  and  consorted  with  the  Apostles ;  and  some  might 
have  gone  up  to  them  and  joined  their  ranks  that  day 
and  have  been  baptized  afterward.  As  a  person  is 
now  said  to  have  joined  the  Baptists  when  he  makes  a 
profession  of  religion  among  them,  and  is  received  by 
them  for  baptism. 

"  But  is  it  by  any  means  certain  that  three  thousand 
could  not  all  have  been  immersed  that  day  ?  It  would 
not  be  hard  to  tell  if  we  knew  how  much  time  there  was ; 
how  many  administrators  there  were ;  and  just  how 
many  each  one  of  them  could  immerse." 

"  Well,  stop  a  little,  Theo. ;  let  us  take  up  one  point 
at  a  time.  How  many  hours  had  they  to  go  upon  ? 
though  as  to  that,  I  don't  see  why  it  would  not  take 
about  as  long  to  sprinkle  or  pour  upon  them,  one  at  a 
time,  and  reverently  repeat  the  formula,  '  I  baptize  thee 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,'  as  it  would  to  immerse  them;  but  we  will 
examine.  What  says  the  record  ?  It  seems  that  when 
Peter  commenced  his  speech,  it  was  not  yet  nine  o'clock 
in  the  morning,  which,  as  the  Jews  counted  from  six, 


116  TI1EODOSIA    ERNEST. 

would  be  the  '  third  hour  in  the  day.'  How  long  before 
nine  it  was  we  cannot  tell.  We  will  suppose  it  was 
just  nine,  and  there  were,  consequently,  only  nine 
hours  remaining,  before  six  in  the  evening,  which  closed 
the  day.  Peter's  speech,  as  it  is  recorded,  would  not 
have  occupied  a  quarter  of  an  hour  in  its  delivery; 
but  it  is  said  that  he  exhorted  them  with  many  other 
words ;  so  we  will  suppose  he  spoke  an  hour,  or  we 
will  say  two  hours.  It  would  then  be  eleven  o'clock. 
Now  we  will  give  them  another  hour  to  go  to  the  water, 
so  that  it  is  twelve  o'clock  when  the  baptism  begins. 
Now  they  must  finish,  you  see,  in  six  hours ;  so  that  is 
our  limit  as  to  time." 

"  Very  well,  uncle,  we  will  consider  it  so,  though 
really  I  can't  see  that  Peter  spoke  even  one  hour,  much 
less  two.  But  now  h'ow  many  administrators  were 
there?" 

"  This  is  a  question,"  said  Uncle  Jones,  "  about  which 
there  is  some  difference  of  opinion.  There  were  cer 
tainly  the  twelve  Apostles,  and  many  think  also  the 
seventy  others  whom  Jesus  sent  out  two  by  two — who 
must  have  been  present,  as  Luke  says  '  they  were  all  with 
one  accord  in  one  place.'  If  so,  then  there  were  eighty- 
two  authorized  administrators.  But  let  us,  first,  to 
obviate  all  difficulties,  suppose  there  were  only  the 
twelve,  who  would  each  have  just  two  hundred  and  fifty 
persons  to  immerse.  So  on  this  supposition,  the  ques 
tion  is  narrowed  down  to  this — can  one  man  immerse 
two  hundred  and  fifty  persons  in  six  hours  ?  I  have 
felt  some  little  curiosity  on  this  subject,  and  when  I 
have  witnessed  imnersions,  have  taken  out  my  watch, 
and  observed  the  time.  It  has  usually  required  about 
fifteen  minutes  to  immerse  twenty  persons ;  provided 
the  candidates  march  in  two  by  two,  to  the  place  where 
the  administrator  is  standing.  This  allowance  of  time 


FOURTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  117 

permits  the  work  to  be  done  without  any  appearance  of 
haste,  and  with  the  coolest  deliberation. 

"  I  have  been  told  by  several  Baptist  ministers,  whose 
veracity  I  have  no  reason  to  doubt,  that  they  have  im 
mersed  large  numbers  at  the  rate  of  two  in  every  minute, 
or  sixty  in  half  an  hour.  At  this  rate  the  twelve  would 
have  finished  the  work  of  this  occasion  in  a  little  over 
two  hours — two  hours  and  ten  minutes.  If  they  only 
worked  half  so  fast,  and  baptized  but  one  a  minute,  they 
had  time  to  get  through,  and  more  than  an  hour  and  a 
half  to  spare.  They  could  each  have  stopped  every  half 
hour,  and  rested  ten  minutes,  and  then  have  gotten 
through  in  time." 

"  So,  uncle,  it  is  as  I  suspected,  there  is  no  difficulty 
as  to  time,  even  though  only  the  twelve  were  engaged 
in  the  work ;  but  if  the  seventy  assisted,  then  how  long 
would  it  take  ?" 

"  In  that  case,  there  would  have  been  less  than  forty 
persons  for  each  administrator,  and  of  course  it  could 
have  been  done  in  less  than  half  an  hour." 

"  But,  uncle,  is  it  certain  that  any  one  besides  the 
twelve  were  authorized  to  baptize  ?" 

"  Surely,  Theo.,  others  must  have  been,  for  it  is  evi 
dent  that  Aquilla,  Acts  xviii.  2,  and  Apollos,  Acts  xviii. 
24,  and  Paul  himself,  Acts  ix.  18,  were  baptized  by 
others  than  the  twelve.  And  Peter,  when  he  had  preached 
the  Word  to  the  household  of  Cornelius,  did  not  bap 
tize  them  himself,  but  directed  it  to  be  done  by  some 
one  else — Acts  x.  14.  But  whether  this  baptism  was 
performed  by  the  twelve,  or  by  the  twelve  assisted  by 
the  sevent}r,  does  not  now  concern  us,  as  we  find  there 
was  no  want  of  time  in  either  case.  And  so  you  have 
found  nothing  in  this  case  to  change  your  opinion  con 
cerning  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptize.  Now  have 
you  any  other  difficulties  ii»  your  way  ?" 


118  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

"  Not  that  I  know  of  now,  uncle.  The  case  seems  to 
me  to  be  perfectly  plain.  But  perhaps  you  can  suggest 
some  other  source  of  information  which  I  have  not  yet 
explored." 

"  Indeed,  my  dear  niece,  I  am  myself  in  great  per 
plexity  upon  this  very  question.  I  have  been  some 
time  engaged  in  its  investigation ;  much  longer  than 
you  have,  and  have  been  compelled  to  come  to  about 
the  same  conclusions  with  yourself — though  this  is  the 
first  time  I  have  ever  mentioned  it." 

"  Oh,  uncle,  is  it  possible  ?  Oh,  if  I  had  only  known 
this  four  days  ago." 

"  Oh,  yes.  If  you  had  known  it,  I  suppose  you  would 
have  been  quoting  Uncle  Jones  as  high  authority  for 
your  heretical  opinions.  But  I  beg  you  will  not  men 
tion  this,  even  to  your  mother,  until  I  shall  have  finally 
decided  the  case.  But  tell  me  now,  Theo.,  what  do  you 
intend  to  do  ?" 

"  There  is  only  one  thing,  uncle,  that  I  can  do.  I 
must  obey  my  Saviour — I  must  be  baptized.  There  is 
only  one  reflection  that  still  casts  a  shade  of  doubt 
across  my  mind,  and  that  is  this :  if  it  was  immersion 
that  Christ  commanded,  and  the  Apostles  and  first 
Christians  practiced,  how  has  it  so  universally  been  set 
aside,  and  sprinkling  substituted  in  its  place  ?" 

"  A  very  important  point  is  that,  my  dear  niece,  and 
I  hope  you  will  come  to  no  final  conclusion  till  you  have 
investigated  thoroughly  the  whole  subject  in  all  its 
bearings.  And  be  assured,  if  I  can  in  any  way  assist 
you,  I  will  be  most  happy  to  do  so.  But  your  friend, 
Mr.  Courtney,  is  much  more  familiar  with  these  subjects 
than  I  am.  Suppose  I  mention  your  difficulty  to  him, 
and  request  him  to  call  to-morrow  evening.  Perhaps  I 
may  come  with  him." 


THE  FIFTH  NIGHTS  STUDY. 


WHICH      CONTAINS 

A  VERY   IMPORTANT   DISCUSSION 

ON    A 

YERY  IMPORTANT  QUESTION. 

NEW  CHARACTERS  AND  CURIOUS  ARGUMENTS, 

THE   SACRED  OR  APPROPRIATE  USE 

OF 

THE    WORD    BAPTIZE, 

AS 

DISTINGUISHED  FROM  THE  COMMON. 


FIFTH  NIGHTS  STUDY. 

YNCLE  JONES  was  Professor  of  Languages  in  the 
College  to  which  we  have  once  or  twice  before 
referred.  A  frank,  free-spoken  man,  with  a  clear 
head  and  warm  heart,  in  which  affection  for  his 
amiable,  talented,  and  beautiful  niece  held  no 
small  space.  Like  most  of  the  members  of  his 
denomination,  having  received  his  so-called  baptism 
without  his  own  knowledge  or  consent,  he  had  never, 
until  very  recently,  felt  that  he  had  any  personal  in 
terest  whatever  in  this  subject. 

He  had  been  informed  that  he  was  baptized  while  yet 
an  infant  in  his  mother's  arms,  and  whether  it  was  prop 
erly  or  improperly  done  had  been  no  concern  of  his.  It 
had  been  the  duty  of  his  parents  and  their  pastor  to 
attend  to  that,  and  he  had  never  inquired  whether  they 
did  it  illy  or  well. 

A  few  days  since,  however,  his  attention  had  been 
directed  to  the  subject  by  a  somewhat  singular  occur 
rence.  Mr.  Courtney,  the  teacher,  was  spending  a  leisure 
hour  at  Prof.  Jones's  room,  at  a  time  when  no  recitation 
claimed  the  attention  of  either,  and  they  were  earnestly 
discussing  some  item  of  the  morning's  news,  when  two 
of  the  college  students  looked  in,  and  seeing  a  visitor, 
were  about  to  withdraw,  but  the  Professor,  with  his 
characteristic  kindness,  called  them  back,  and  inquired 
in  what  way  he  could  serve  them. 

After   a   moment's   hesitation  the   younger,    (whose 
name  was   Pearson)   replied :  "  Oh,  it  is  of  no  conse 
quence,  Professor  Jones.     Chum  and  I  had  a  little  dis- 
11  (121) 


122  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

pute  which  we  agreed  to  refer  to  you  for  decision,  but 
as  you  are  engaged  we  will  call  some  other  time." 

"  No,  no,"  said  the  Professor,  "  come  in  and  tell  me 
now.  I  am  quite  at  liberty.  Perhaps  Mr.  Courtney 
will  assist  us,  if  there  is  any  thing  important  to  deter 
mine  upon." 

"Oh,  no,"  said  Smith  (the  other  student),  "it  is  of 
no  great  importance.  We  only  wish  to  ask  you  what  is 
the  Greek  word  for  to  dip." 

"  It  is  embapto,  bapto,  or  baptizo,  young  gentlemen. 
Why  did  you  not  refer  to  your  English  and  Greek  Lexi 
con  ?  That  would  have  enabled  you  to  answer  the 
question  for  yourselves." 

"We  did  refer  to  that,"  said  Pearson;  "but  Smith 
was  not  satisfied  with  the  Lexicon.  He  thought  there 
must  be  some  mistake.  Now,"  he  continued,  "  will  you 
be  kind  enough  to  tell  us  what  was  the  word  which, 
among  the  Greeks,  commonly  signified  to  pour  ?" 

"  Certainly.     Gheo  signifies  to  pour." 

"Had  the  Greeks  any  words  which  commonly  meant 
to  sprinkle?" 

"Yes,  raino  meant  to  sprinkle." 

" Had  they  any  word  which  meant  to  wet?" 

"  Certainly,  brecho  signified  to  wet.  But  tell  me, 
young  gentlemen,  what  is  the  object  of  these  questions  ? 
You  know  the  meaning  of  these  Greek  words  as  well  as 
I  do." 

"  Pardon  me,  Professor,  but  let  me  ask  one  question 
more.  Did  not  the  Greeks  have  a  word  which  signified 
to  wash  ?" 

"  Yes,  they  had  several.  Louo  was  used  to  signify  a 
general  washing,  as  by  bathing,  and  nipto  a  partial  one, 
as  of  the  hands  alone.  The  Greek  language  was  per 
haps  eren  more  copious  in  words  of  this  sort  than  the 


FIFTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  123 

English.  It  had  a  word  to  express  almost  every  man 
ner  of  using  water." 

"  Excuse  me,  Professor  Jones,  but  I  want  to  ask  one 
question  more.  Will  3rou  please  to  tell  us  whether  bapto 
and  baptizo  are  not  as  properly,  and  as  commonly  ren 
dered  by  dip  as  cheo  is  by  pour,  or  raino  by  sprinkle, 
or  louo  by  wash  ?" 

"  Certainly  they  are,  except  when  bapto  has  its  secon 
dary  meaning,  to  dye,  to  color,  to  stain.  But  now, 
young  gentlemen,  you  must  permit  me  to  turn  ques- 
tionei*.  I  desire  to  know  for  what  purpose  you  come 
with  such  a  string  of  questions  to  me  ?" 

"We  hope  you  will  not  be  offended,  sir;  but  Smith 
and  I,"  said  Pearson,  "went  last  Sabbath  afternoon  to 
witness  the  immersion ;  and  have  since  had  a  little  dis 
cussion  on  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptize  and  its  cog 
nates,  as  used  in  the  Scriptures  in  reference  to  the  ordi 
nance. 

"We  found  the  words  in  the  Lexicon  just  as  we 
would  any  other  words,  and  by  this  means,  were,  as  I 
thought,  obliged  to  translate  them  by  dipping  or  im 
mersion. 

"  But  Smith  contended  that  there  must  be  some  error 
in  this,  and  that  baptismos  must  signify  a  sprinkling  or 
a  pouring,  as  well  as  a  dipping ;  and  since  we  could 
find  no  authority  for  this  in  the  Grammars  or  Lexicons 
of  the  language,  he  insisted  on  coming  to  you  about  it." 

"  Certainly,  sir,  there  must  be  some  mistake  about 
these  words  in  the  Lexicons,  for  my  father  was  a  Pres 
byterian  minister,  and  I  know  he  was  a  good  Greek 
scholar,  and  yet  he  not  only  baptized  by  sprinkling, 
but  insisted  that  there  was  no  such  thing  as  immersion 
ever  spoken  of  for  baptism.  The  president  of  this  col 
lege  and  all  the  faculty  are  Presbyterians,  and  they  all 
approve  of  sprinkling  as  baptism — which  they  certainly 


124  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

could  not  do  if  the  very  word  baptism  in  the  Greek  sig 
nifies  immersion.  I  cannot  understand  it,  sir,  if  Jesus 
Christ  meant  to  say  sprinkle,  why  did  he  not  use  the 
word  raino  ?  If  he  meant  to  say  pour,  why  did  he  not 
use  the  word  cheo  or  eccheo  ?  If  he  meant  to  say  wet 
(that  is,  to  apply  water  in  any  form),  why  did  he  not  use 
the  word  brecho  f  As  it  seems  to  be  certain,  from  the 
practice  of  the  best  and  most  learned  clergymen  of  the 
world,  that  he  did  not  and  could  not  have  meant  dip  or 
immerse,  why  did  he  use  a  word  which  commonly,  if  not 
always,  meant  to  immerse  ?  And  which,  as  a  matter  of 
;  course,  every  one  who  read  or  spoke  the  Greek  would 
understand  to  mean  immerse  ?  I  wish,  Professor  Jones, 
you  would  be  kind  enough  to  explain  this  to  us,  sir,  for 
Pearson  has  annoyed  me  about  it  till  I  have  almost  lost 
my  patience." 

The  professor  himself  was  somewhat  annoyed  by  these 
questions,  and  the  more  so  because  they  had  been  asked 
in  the.presence  of  Mr.  Courtney,  whom  he  knew  to  be  a 
Baptist,  and  a  thorough  classical  scholar.  He  was, 
however,  too  prudent  to  permit  the  students  to  discover 
his  embarrassment,  and  only  replied,  "  We  often  find  it 
'•}  much  easier  to  ask  questions,  young  gentlemen,  than  it 
is  to  answer  them — but  in  the  present  case,  you  have 
only  to  recollect  that  words  often  undergo  a  change  of 
meaning  in  the  lapse  of  time,  or  by  transfer  to  other 
places,  and  your  difficulties  with  all  vanish.  We  may 
grant  that  dipping  or  immersion  is  the  idea  which  was 
originally  connected  with  these  words — and  so  it  is  still 
in  the  classic  Greek  ;  hence  this  is  what  you  find  in  the 
Lexicons  of  the  language ;  but  the  Greek  of  the  New 
Testament  was  not  the  pure  classic  Greek,  but  a  sort  of 
Jew  Greek,  if  I  may  so  speak,  which  had  come  into  use 
in  Palestine,  and  may  have  been  different  from  the  lan 
guage  as  originally  spoken  and  written ;  and  as  the 


FIFTH  RIGHT'S  STUDY.  125 

writers  of  the  New  Testament  were  treating  of  a  new 
system  of  religion,  they  would  be  very  likely  to  use 
words  in  a  new  sense.  And  though  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  the  idea  of  submersion  is  almost  always  in  these 
words  as  they  occur  in  the  classical  writers,  yet  it  does 
not  of  necessity  follow  that  it  must  be  in  them  as  con 
stantly  when  they  are  used  by  the  evangelists." 

"Thank  you,  sir,"  said  Smith.  "That  is  very  satis 
factory."  And  the  young  men  took  their  leave. 

When  they  were  gone,  Professor  Jones,  observing  the 
peculiar  expression  of  Mr.  Courtney's  countenance,  was 
led  to  continue  the  subject.  "  You  did  not  seem,"  said 
he,  "to  be  as  well  satisfied  as  the  boys  were  with  my 
explanation." 

"If  you  will  pardon  me  for  saying  so,  Professor,  I  do 
not  see  how  you  could  be  satisfied  with  it  yourself." 

"And  why  not,  pray  ?" 

"Because  you  have  too  much  good  sense  to  take  it  for 
granted  that  a  thing  is  true  only  because  it  possibly  may 
be  true.  You  intimated,  if  you  did  not  plainly  assert 
to  the  young  men,  that  these  words,  bajjto,  baptizo,  and 
,  their  co-relatives,  signify  to  sprinkle,  and  pour,  in  the 
Greek  New  Testament,  though  you  will  admit  that  they 
never  have  those  meanings  in  any  other  Greek  book;  and 
your  sole  and  entire  authority  for  this  assertion,  is  the 
fact  that  some  other  words  have  changed  their  meaning, 
and  therefore  it  was  possible  that  these  might  have  done 
so  also.  I  grant  that  they  might  have  changed,  but 
there  is  not  even  the  shadow  of  any  evidence  to  show 
that  they  have  really  done  so.  Some  men  have  applied 
to  the  Legislature  and  had  their  names  changed ;  and  so 
you  and  I  might  have  done,  but  this  is  certainly  no  proof 
that  our  names  have  been  changed.  If  you  build  an 
argument,  or  base  an  explanation  on  this  change,  it  is 
not  enough  to  suppose  it  to  be  possible  that  such  a 


16  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

change  might  occur ;  you  must  prove  it  to  be  certain 
that  such  a  change  did  occur." 

"  But  you  will  grtint,"  replied  Professor  Jones,  "  that 
it  was  at  least  probable,  that  as  Christ  was  introducing 
a  new  order  of  things  in  religion,  new  words,  or  rather 
old  words  with  new  meanings,  should  be  employed  in 
describing  this  new  ordinance." 

"  So  far  from  granting  that  it  was  probable,  I  will  prove 
that  it  was  morally  impossible ;  though,  if  it  had  been 
even  probable,  it  would  not  justify  your  conclusions. 

"  What  would  you  think  of  the  common  sense  of  that 
member  of  Congress  wrho  should  treat  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  in  the  same  way  that  you  treat  the 
Constitution  of  the  Christian  church,  and  earnestly  and 
soberly  declare  that  such  words  as  war  and  peace,  taxes 
and  treaties,  are  not  to  be  understood  among  us  in  their 
common  and  ordinary  acceptation,  as  they  are  used  by 
other  writers,  and  as  we  find  them  defined  in  the  dic 
tionaries — but  that  war  means  want,  peace  means  plenty, 
taxes  mean  tables,  and  treaties  mean  troubles  ?  You 
would  expect  his  colleagues  to  call  him  a  fool.  Xor 
would  you  think  more  highly  of  his  wisdom,  if  he  should 
reply,  and  defend  himself  by  saying — that  it  is  true 
these  were  common  English  words,  the  meaning  of  which 
had  been  fixed  and  known  for  many  ages,  yet  America 
was  a  new  country,  and  the  Constitution  was  designed 
to  usher  in  a  new  order  of  things,  and  nothing  was  more 
natural  than  that  its  framers  should  use  words  in  some 
new  and  unnatural  sense  !  And  yet,  this  is  precisely 
the  manner  of  reasoning  adopted  by  grave  and  reverend 
DOCTORS  OF  DIVINITY,  when  they  attempt  to  ex 
pound  the  constitution  which  Christ  gave  his  church. 
There  is  not  a  single  word  in  the  whole  Greek  language 
the  meaning  of  which  is  more  definitely  fixed  and  more 
perfectly  known  than  that  of  baptizo,  and  those  derived 


FIFTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  127 

from  it.  In  any  other  book  but  the  ]STew  Testament,  no 
scholar  ever  hesitates  about  its  signification.  When 
Homer  speaks  of  a  smith  baptizing  a  hatchet  or  huge 
pole-axe  in  cold  water,  to  harden  it,  we  have  no  difficulty 
in  knowing  what  he  means.  We  see  the  smith  harden 
steel  in  the  same  manner  now,  by  plunging  it  in  the 
water. 

"  When  Herodotus  says  of  the  Egtyptians,  that  if 
they  touched  a  swine,  they  went  into  the  river,  and  bap 
tized  themselves  with  their  clothes  on,  no  scholar  doubts 
they  plunged  into  the  water. 

"  When  Diodorus  Siculus  says  of  a  ship  that  it  was 
baptized  in  the  sea,  no  scholar  doubts  that  he  means  to 
say  the  ship  was  sunk — merged  in  the  sea. 

"  When  Plutarch  says  of  the  Roman  general  that  he 
baptized  his  hand  in  blood,  no  one  doubts  that  he  dipped 
his  hand  in  the  blood.  And  yet  you  know  that  in  these, 
and  many  similar  places,  the  very  same  word  is  used 
which  is  employed  in  the  New  Testament  to  denote  the 
ordinance.  You  may  take  the  whole  range  of  Greek 
literature,  up  to  the  very  time  when  the  Gospels  were 
written,  and  you  cannot  find  one  solitary  instance  in 
which  these  words  are  used  to  signify  either  sprinkling 
or  pouring,  nor  any  one  in  which  they  have  not  in  them 
the  idea  of  an  immersion — literal  or  figurative." 

"  Yes,  Mr.  Courtney,  but  that  was  classic  Greek. 
The  Hebraistic  Greek,  spoken  and  written  among  the 
Jews,  might  have  been  different." 

"  So  it  might,  Professor  Jones,  but  as  regards  this 
wrord,  it  was  not  different,  nevertheless.  If  there  was 
any  such  thing  as  Jew  Greek,  you  would  find  it  in  the 
translation  of  their  own  Scripture,  made  by  seventy 
learned  men  of  their  own  nation,  and  hence  called  by 
them  the  Septuagint.  With  this  translation  the  Jews, 
in  our  Saviour's  time,  were  more  familiar  than  with  the 


128  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

original  Hebrew.  It  was  this  that  Jesus  quoted  in  his 
discourses.  It  was  this  that  Matthew,  and  the  other 
writers  of  the  New  Testament,  refer  to,  and  quote  as 
the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  This  was  the  Greek  which  the 
Je$vs  understood  better  than  any  other.  If  there  was, 
therefore,  any  such  thing  as  Hebraistic  or  Jew  Greek  it 
was  in  this  book.  Now,  sir,  you  know  very  well  that 
the  idea  of  dipping,  expressed  by  the  Hebrew  word 
'  tabaV  is  in  this  Jew  Greek  uniformly  rendered  by 
'  bapto'  or  '  baptizo' — and  these  words  are  never  used  in 
any  other  than  their  common  classical  signification. 

"  And  further  still,  Josephus,  who  was  a  Jew,  lived 
among  the  Jews,  and  wrote  the  history  of  the  Jews, 
lived  and  wrote  just  about  the  same  time  that  the 
authors  of  the  New  Testament  did,  and  if  they  wrote 
in  the  '  Jew  Greek,'  he  did  so  also.  He  w.rote  for  the 
same  people,  at  the  same  time,  and  in  the  same  lan 
guage,  and  uses  the  same  word  again  and  again,  "but  no 
one  ever  suspected  that  he  meant  sprinkling  or  pouring, 
or  that  he  used  it  in  any  other  than  its  common,  classi 
cal  sense.  He  invariably  uses  the  word  to  signify 
sinking,  submerging,  or  dipping.  And  besides  all  this, 
you  will  please  to  remember  that  the  greater  part  of  the 
New  Testament  was  written,  not  for  the  Jews,  but  for 
the  Greeks,  to  read,  and,  consequently,  if  the  writers 
did  not  use  Greek  words,  in  their  ordinary  Greek  sense, 
they  would  not  be  understood — but  would,»in  fact,  convey 
an  absolute  falsehood.  Mark  was  written  at  Rome,  for 
the  Italians  and  strangers  who  read  the  Greek  language 
there.  Luke  addressed  his  Gospel  and  the  Acts  to  an 
individual  in  the  Greek  nation,  for  Theophilus  is  a 
Greek  name.  John  was  written  in  the  very  territory 
of  Greece  itself.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  even  if 
there  had  been  a  peculiar  Jewish  use  of  the  word,  the 
writers  of  the  Gospels  could  not  have  employed  it 


FIFTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  129 

unless  they  had  explained,  at  the  same  time,  that  they 
did  not  use  it  in  its  common  signification.  If  I  say 
that  I  was  immersed  in  the  Cumberland  river  people 
who  understand  English  will  think  I  was  plunged  be 
neath  the  surface  of  the  water — or  else  that  I  state 
what  was  not  true ;  because  this  is  the  common  every 
day  meaning  of  the  word  immerse  in  the  language  to 
which  it  belongs.  So  when  these  writers  say  Christ 
was  baptized  in  the  river  Jordan,  everybody  that  read 
Greek  would  understand  that  he  was  submerged  in  the 
river,  for  this  was  the  common  every-day  meaning  of 
the  word  baptize  in  the  language  to  which  it  belonged." 

"  I  must  acknowledge,  Mr.  Courtney,"  said  the  Pro 
fessor,  "  there  is  a  great  deal  of  force  in  what  you  say ; 
and  I  really  do  not,  at  this  moment,  see  how  I  can  set 
aside  your  reasoning.  I  had  no  idea  that  so  strong  an 
argument  could  possibly  be  made  in  behalf  of  immer 
sion.  But  is  it  not  true,  sir,  that  there  areimany  places 
in  the  New  Testament  where  the  word  cannot  possibly 
mean  immersion — or  where  it  is  at  least  much  more 
probable  that  it  means  something  else  ?" 

"  I  have  no  doubt,  Professor,  that  there  are  a  number 
of  places  where  it  would  seem  much  more  probable  to 
you  that  it  has  some  other  meaning,  if  it  were  not  that 
the  usage  of  the  language  has  fixed  its  meaning  to  be 
immersion.  It  might  seem  probable  to  us  that  Jesus 
rode  into  Jerusalem  on  a  war-horse,  but  the  meaning  of 
the  words  employed  in  describing  his  entry  compels  us 
to  believe  that  he  rode  on  an  ass's  colt.  So,  also,  it 
might  seem  probable  that  the  Pharisees  only  sprinkled 
the  couches  on  which  they  reclined  at  their  meals,  but 
the  word  employed  shows  that  they  really  immersed 
them,  however  improbable  it  might  seem  to  one  who 
was  not  aware  of  the  extreme  care  which  the  superstitious 
Pharisees  employed,  lest  some  part  of  their  furniture 


130  TIIEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

should  escape  the  contact  of  the  water,  and  so  remain 
in  its  impurity. 

"  So,  also,  when  he  says  that  '  The  Pharisees  -and  all 
the  Jews  eat  not  when  they  come  from  market,  except 
they  first  wash  (immerse)  themselves.'  It  might  seem 
more  probable  that  they  only  sprinkled  themselves,  or 
crossed  their  foreheads  with  holy  water,  or  poured  some 
drops  upon  the  top  of  their  heads :  but  the  words  em 
ployed  declare  expressly  that  they  'immersed.'  I  will 
not  refuse  to  believe  God's  Word,  because  he  tells  ine 
of  a  circumstance  that  seems  to  me  improbable.  The 
Scriptures  are  full  of  improbable  things,  but  I  surely 
will  not  dare  to  change  the  meaning  of  the  words  used 
to  relate  them,  in  order  to  get  rid  of  the  improbability. 

"  This  would  be  worse  than  infidelity  itself.  I  believe 
just  what  God  says,  whether  it  were  probable  or  im 
probable. 

"  But  now  if  you  tell  me  that  these  things  were  impos 
sible,  that  is  quite  a  different  matter.  If  any  persons  or 
things  are  said  to  be  baptized,  that  could  not  possibly 
have  been  immersed,  then  I  must  grant  that  the  Scrip 
ture  either  asserts  what  is  not  true,  or  that  it  uses  words 
in  a  new  and  unusual  sense.  Permit  me  to  suggest  to 
you,  Professor,  that  it  would  not  be  an  unprofitable 
study  to  investigate  this  point.  Take  a  Greek  Con 
cordance,  and  turn  to  every  passage  where  the  word 
occurs ;  and  if  you  find  any  impossibility  in  admitting 
the  classical  and  common  meaning,  I  will  be  prepared 
to  concede  something  when  we  meet  again." 

"  I  thank  you  for  the  suggestion,  Mr.  Courtney.  You 
have  indeed  thrown  new  light  upon  this  subject.  I  am 
just  now  somewhat  bewildered  by  it.  I  will  examine 
more  carefully,  and  tell  you  my  conclusions." 

It  was  on  Monday  that  this  conversation  occurred, 
and  Mr.  Courtney  was  returning  home,  when  he 


FIFTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  'il 

called  by  Edwin  into  Mrs.  Ernest's,  to  assist  the  inves 
tigations  of  Theodosia  and  Mr.  Percy.  It  was  now  near 
night  on  Thursday,  and  he  had  yet  heard  nothing  fur 
ther  from  the  Professor  on  the  subject;  but  just  as  he 
was  leaving  his  school  room,  a  lad  handed  him  the  fol 
lowing  note : 

"DEAR  COURTNEY: — I  have  been  examining,  as  you 
suggested,  into  the  Scripture  usage  of  the  word  'Bap- 
tizo1  and  its  cognates.  I  am  surprised  and  embarrassed 
by  the  results.  Difficulties  in  the  way  of  sprinkling  in 
crease  at  every  step ;  yet  there  are  also  some  difficulties 
in  the  way  of  immersion.  Perhaps  you  can  easily 
obviate  them.  I  had  last  evening  a  very  interesting 
conversation  with  my  niece  on  this  subject.  She  feels 
that  she  has  been  greatly  assisted  by  your  advice  and 
suggestions.  There  is  still,  however,  one  point  on 
which  her  mind  remains  in  doubt.  It  is  this.  If  Christ 
commanded  immersion,  and  immersion  was  practiced  by 
the  first  churches,  how  came  it  to  be  so  universally  dis 
carded,  and  sprinkling  substituted  in  its  place  ?  This 
question,  I  confess,  presents  a  mystery  to  me  also. 
Will  you  do  me  the  kindness  to  meet  me  at  Mrs.  Ernest's 
to-night,  and  come  prepared  to  enlighten  our  darkness 
on  this  point  ?  Yours  truly, 

"  J.  M.  JONES." 

This  was  a  subject  to  which  the  teacher  had  recently 
given  considerable  attention,  and  had  collected  a  num 
ber  of  authorities  among  Pedobaptist  writers,  show 
ing,  not  only  that  immersion  was  at  first  the  universal 
practice  of  all  the  churches,  but  also  the  very  time  and 
place  when  and  where  pouring  first,  and  sprinkling 
afterward,  were  introduced  instead  of  it. 

He  went  home,  therefore,  and,  after  supper,  selected 


132  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

such  books  as  he  thought  would  be  most  satisfactory  to 
his  inquirers,  and  took  them  with  him  to  the  widow's 
cottage. 

He  found  Uncle  Jones  already  there,  who  was  not 
long  in  beginning  the  discussion. 

"  I  see  by  the  pile  of  books  you  have  brought,"  said  he, 
"  that  you  received  my  note,  and  have  come  prepared  to 
remove,  if  possible,  all  our  historical  difficulties.  Before 
we  enter  upon  the  history  of  the  ordinance,  will  you  per 
mit  me  to  mention  some  difficulties  in  the  way  of  under 
standing  the  word  baptize  to  signify  immersion,  where- 
ever  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament?" 

"  Certainly  ;  for  though  I  ventured  to  tell  you  (when 
we  talked  upon  this  subject  last  Monda}r),  that  you 
would  not  find  any  impossibilities,  I  did  not  even  inti 
mate  that  you  would  find  no  difficulties.  But  Avhat  are 
those  which  have  troubled  yon  ?" 

"It  will  perhaps  save  time  if  we  take  up  the  passages 
in  order.  I  knew  that  baplo  and  baptizo  were  derived 
from  the  same  root,  and,  in  classical  usage,  had  pre 
cisely  the  same  signification,  except  that  bapto,  while  it 
signifies  to  dip,  signifies  also  to  dye  or  color,  which 
baptizo  never  does.*  And  I,  therefore,  found  all  the 
places  where  these  words  occur. 

*  "What,"  says  Professor  Moses  Stuart,  page  298 — "What 
are  the  classical  meanings  of  bapto  and  baptizo  ?  Both  these 
words  mean  to  dip,  to  immerse,  to  plunge  into  any  thing  liquid. 
All  lexicographers  and  critics  of  any  note  are  agreed  in  this." 
And  again,  on  page  288:  "The  original  etymological  root  of 
baptizo,  bapto,  and  also  of  the  nouns  and  adjectives  kindred  with 
them,  appears  plainly  to  be  the  Greek  monosyllable  BAP.  The 
leading  and  original  meaning  of  which  seems  to  have  been  dip 
ping,  immersing,  plunging,  soaking,  drenching  in  some  liquid  ; 
and  as  closely  associated  with  this,  the  idea  of  dyeing  or  coloring, 
since  this  was  done  by  dipping."  And  again  :  "  The  precise  dif 
ference  between  bapto  and  baptizo  is,  that  while  they  both 


FIFTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  133 

"  I  will  first  mention  those  in  which  there  is  no  direct 
allusion  to  the  ordinance,  but  where  the  word  occurs,  as 
it  often  does  in  the  Old  Testament,  in  connection  with 
other  subjects. 

"  Theodosia,  get  your  Testament,  child,  and  read 
them  as  I  mention  them,  according  to  my  memorandum. 
The  first  is  Luke  xvi.  24. 

"  '  Send  Lazarus  that  he  may  (baptize)  dip  the  tip 
of  his  finger  in  water  and  cool  my  tongue.'  This  seems 
plain  enough ;  and  so  does  the  second,  John  xiii.  26,  'It is 
he  to  whom  I  shall  give  the  sop  when  I  have  (baptized) 
dipped  it ;  and  when  he  had  (baptized)  dipped  it,  he 
gave  it  to  Judas.'  Nor  did  I  find  any  difficulty  with 
the  third,  Revelation  xix.  13,  'And  he  was  clothed  in  a 
vesture  (baptized)  dipped  in  blood.'  But  here  in  the 
fourth  case,  or  Mark  vii.  4,  I  find  a  difficulty.  '  The 
(baptisms)  washing  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  vessels, 
and  tables.'  Now,  so  far  as  the  cups,  and  pots,  and 
vessels  are  concerned,  the  matter  is  made  entirely  plain 
by  turning  to  Leviticus  xii.  32,  '  Whether  it  be  any 
vessel  of  wood,  or  raiment,  or  skin,  or  sack,  whatsoever 
vessel  it  be  wherein  any  work  is  done,  it  must  be  put 
into  the  water,  and  it  shall  be  unclean  until  evening,  and 
so  it  shall  be  cleansed.'  From  this  it  is  evident  that 
the  cups  and  other  vessels  were  immersed,  or  'put  into 
the  water :'  but  the  word  translated  table,  may  mean  also 
a  couch  or  bed,  and  how  the  beds  and  tables  could  be 
immersed,  I  do  not  so  easily  understand." 

"And  yet,  uncle,"  said  the  young  lady,  "  the  same 
Scripture  that  speaks  of  the  immersion  or  baptism  of 


agree  in  one  common  and  original  meaning,  that  of  immersion  or 
plunging,  usage  lias  employed  bapto  to  express  the  idea  of  color 
ing,  as  well  as  the  idea  of  dipping  or  plunging  ;  while  baptize  is 
not  employed  in  the  additional  sense  of  coloring." 
12 


134  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

the  cups,  speaks  also  of  that  of  the  tables.  Whatever 
was  done  to  the  cups,  therefore,  was  done  to  the  tables 
too." 

"  Yes,  Theo.,  and  that  is  what  makes  me  doubt  if  there 
was  any  immersion  about  it.*  The  cups  could  have  been 
dipped  easily  enough,  but  to  dip  beds  and  tables  is  quite 
another  business." 

"  But,  uncle,  if  '  putting  into  the  water'  was  immer 
sion,  must  they  not  have  been  immersed  ?" 

"  It  would  seem  so,  Theo.,  but  I  can't  understand  how 
it  could  be  done." 

"  The  difficulty  will  all  vanish,"  said  Mr.  Courtne3r, 
"  if  you  will  remember  that  the  little  stool  to  hold  his 
plate  which  stood  at  the  head  of  each  guest  as  he  reclined 
upon  the  floor,  was  called  a  table,  and  the  mat  or  cloth 
which  he  lay  upon,  was  called  a  couch  or  bed  ;  and  either 
of  these  could  be  immersed  as  readily  as  the  cups.  They 
had  no  massive  mahogany  tables,  or  beds  containing 
sixty  pounds  of  feathers,  as  we  have.  The  poor  invalid 
whom  Jesus  healed,  did  not  probably  evince  any  extra 
ordinary  muscular  power  when  he  took  up  his  bed  and 
walked  awajr  with  it. 

"  But  we  have  other  testimony  besides  that  of  Mark 
on  the  subject.  What  if  I  show  you  from  the  writings 
of  a  learned  Hebrew,  that  the 'beds  and  tables  not  only 
could  be  immersed,  but  that  their  immersion  was  habitu 
ally  practiced  by  the  superstitious  Pharisees  !" 

"  That  will  indeed  remove  every  shadow  of  doubt," 
said  the  Professor;  "but  have  you  indeed  such  testi 
mony  ?" 

"  Certainly  we  have.  There  was  a  very  learned  Jew 
who  wrote  a  very  elaborate  commentary  on  the  Jewish 
customs  and  traditions.  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  the  great 
commentator,  recognizes  his  authority,  and  calls  him 
the  '  great  expounder  of  the  Jewish  Law ;'  and,  as  he 


FIFTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  135 

comes  thus  'properly  vouched  for,'  I  trust  his  evidence 
will  not  be  disputed.  This  learned  and  eminent  Rabbi, 
commonly  called  Rabbi  Maimonides,  says,  in  his  com 
mentary  :  '  Every  vessel  of  wood,  as  a  table  or  bed,  re 
ceives  defilement,  and  these  were  washed  by  covering  in 
water,  and  very  nice  and  particular  they  were,'  he  adds, 
'  that  they  might  be  covered  all  over.' 

"  If  the  article  was  very  large  and  could  not  be  dipped 
all  at  one  time,  it  could  still,  according  to  the  teaching 
of  this  great  expounder,  be  easily  immersed.  For,  says 
he,  'A  bed  that  is  wholly  defiled,  if  he  dip  it  part  by 
part,  it  is  pure.  If  he  dip  it  in  the  pool  of  water  it 
is  clean,  even  though  its  feet  are  plunged  in  the  thick 
clay.' 

"  Perhaps,"  continued  Mr.  Courtney,  addressing  Theo- 
dosia,  "  your  uncle  may  find  it  easier  to  believe  Mai 
monides  than  Mark,  and  if  so,  the  tables  are  disposed 
of." 

"  The  Rabbi's  explanation  does  indeed  remove  all 
difficulties,"  said  Uncle  Jones ;  "  but  now  look  at  the 
first  part  of  the  verse.  '  The  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews 
except  they  wash  their  hands,  eat  not ;  and  when  they 
come  from  the  market,  except  they  (baptize)  wash,  they 
eat  not;  holding  the  tradition  of  the  elders.'  Now  I 
can  hardly  think  it  possible  that  the  Jews,  whenever 
they  came  from  market,  dipped  themselves  all  over  in 
water,  as  the  word  (baptisonti)  employed  here,  would 
intimate,  if  immersion  indeed  be  the  meaning  of  the 
word.  It  seems  as  though  something  else  would  be 
much  more  natural  and  likely  to  be  done." 

"  Suppose  it  was  more  likely  that  they  should  do 
something  else,"  replied  Mr.  Courtney,  "  can  you  not 
believe,  on  the  authority  of  the  Word  of  God,  that  the 
superstitious  Jews  would  do  very  unlikely,  improbable, 
and  inconvenient  things  ?  It  cannot  be  denied  that  it 


136  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

was  just  as  possible  for  them  to  immerse  themselves 
(baptisonti)  when  they  came  from  market,  as  it  was  to 
wash  their  hands  (nipsonti)  on  ordinary  occasions,  or 
before  meals ;  but  it  is  very  easy  to  determine  what  it 
was  which  they  actually  did,  since  it  was  that  which 
was  required  by  the  'tradition  of  the  elders.'  What, 
then,  was  this  tradition  of  the  elders  ?  Mahnonides 
shall  enlighten  us  here  again.  '  If  the  Pharisees,'  says 
he,  '  touched  but  the  garments  of  the  common  people, 
they  were  defiled  all  over  as  if  they  had  touched  a  pro- 
fluous  person,  and  needed  immersion,  and  were  obliged 
to  do  it ;  and  hence  when  they  walked  the  streets,  they 
walked  on  the  side  of  the  way,  that  they  might  not  be 
defiled  by  touching  the  common  people.  In  a  laver 
(they  say)  which  holds  forty  seahs  of  water,  every  defiled 
man  dips  himself.' 

"  It  was,  therefore,  we  see,  a  veritable  immersion 
which  was  required  by  the  '  tradition  of  the  elders,'  as 
preserved  in  their  nation  and  recorded  by  one  of  their 
most  learned  Rabbis ;  and  though  Doctors  of  Divinity 
find  it  very  hard  to  believe  the  plain  assertion  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  speaking  by  Mark,  and  fancy  there  must 
be  some  mistake  or  misunderstanding  when  he  says  the 
Pharisees  immersed  themselves ;  yet  I  have  never  heard 
that  any  of  them  hesitated  to  receive  the  uninspired 
testimony  of  the  Jewish  Rabbi,  or  proposed  to  give  to 
his  words  new  and  unheard-of  meanings  to  obviate  the 
necessity  of  admitting  that  immersion  was  practiced  by 
the  superstitious  Jews." 

"  I  am  very  much  obliged  to  you,"  said  the  Professor, 
"for  laying  the  sin  of  my  unbelief  at  the  door  of  the 
Doctors  of  Divinity ;  and,  to  tell  the  truth,  they  are  in 
some  degree  responsible  for  it,  for  I  am  doubtful  if  I 
should  have  seen  these  difficulties  so  plainly  had  I  not 
looked  at  them  through  the  theological  microscope  of 


FIFTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  137 

Dr.  Miller,  of  Princeton,  New  Jersey.  You  have  dis 
posed  of  them  so  easily  and  so  satisfactorily,  that  I  am 
almost  ashamed  to  ask  you  for  your  opinion  about  the 
divers  washings  in  Hebrews  ix.  10.  These  washings, 
you  know,  are  in  the  original  called  Baptismois  or  bap 
tisms — were  they  not  some  of  the  many  sprinklings 
enjoined  upon  the  Jews  by  the  Levitical  law  ?" 

"  Surely,  my  dear  sir,  if  they  had  been,  Paul  would 
have  called  them  sprinklings.  He  understood  the  use 
of  the  proper  word  for  sprinkle,  for  he  uses  it  in  this 
same  connection  where  he  speaks  of  '  the  ashes  of  an 
heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean.'  The  baptisms  were  evi 
dently  something  else,  and  another  and  altogether  dif 
ferent  word  is  employed  to  designate  them — one  word 
refers  to  the  sprinklings  required  by  the  law,  the  other 
to  the  immersions  which  it  commanded." 

"  But,  Mr.  Courtney,  I  have  in  some  way  received  the 
impression  that  the  law  nowhere  commands  any  immer 
sions.  It  commands  sprinklings  and  ablutions,  wash 
ings  and  purifications,  but  never  in  any  case  immersions 
— so  the  allusion  must  be  to  some  other  cleansings  than 
to  immersions." 

"  Permit  me  to  say,  Professor,  that  you  could  not 
have  received  that  impression  from  a  careful  study  of 
the  law  itself — you  are  probably  indebted  for  it  to  a 
Doctor  of  Divinity.  Take  your  Bible,  and  turn  to  the 
law,  and  you  will  read  of  immersions  or  dippings  in 
blood — dippings  in  blood  and  running  water — dippings 
in  oil — dippings  in  the  water  of  purification — and  in  the 
practice  of  the  Jews,  many,  if  not  most  of  the  ivashinys 
mentioned  in  the  law,  were  performed  by  immersion, 
though  this  was  not  specifically  required  by  the  com 
mand.  The  ten  lavers  that  Solomon  made,  were  for 
washing  the  sacrifices,  and  these  were  washed  by  dip 
ping  them  in  the  water.  The  great  sea  which  he  made, 


133  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

was  for  the  priests  to  bathe  in,  2d  Chron.  iv.  G.  And 
this  washing  was  an  immersion.  On  how  many  occa 
sions  do  you  read,  in  the  15th  of  Leviticus,  that  one 
'must  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in  water?' 
Are  clothes  washed  without  immersion  ?  The  vessels 
of  wood,  skin,  etc.,  were  required  to  '  to  be  put  into  the 
water' — was  not  this  an  immersion  ?  And  if  you  doubt 
that  the  washing  or  bathing  of  their  persons  was  im 
mersion,  we  will  learn  from  Maimonides  what  it  was 
that  they  actually  did  in  obedience  to  this  law : 

"' In  their  law,' says  this  learned  Rabbi,  'whenever 
washing  of  the  body  or  the  clothes  is  mentioned,  it 
means  nothing  else  than  the  washing  the  whole  body ; 
for  if  any  wash  himself  all  over  except  the  very  tip  of 
his  little  finger,  he  is  still  in  his  uncleanness.' 

"  That  this  was  what  the  Jews  understood  by  washing, 
is  further  evident  from  the  case  of  Naaman.  The 
prophet  told  him  to  go  and  ivash  seven  times  in  Jordan  ; 
and  it  was  regarded  as  strict  and  literal  obedience  when 
he  went  and  '  dipped  himself  seven  times.'  " 

"  I  see,  Mr.  Courtney,  that  it  is  just  as  easy  to  find 
the  'divers  immersions'  as  the  'sprinklings,'  and  I  do 
not  see  why  I  should  have  been  so  easily  imposed  upon. 
I  find  I  must  be  careful  how  I  receive  the  assertions 
even  of  our  Doctors  of  Divinit}'." 

"  Yes,  uncle,"  said  Theodosia,  "  I  have  determined 
that  I  will  find  every  thing  in  the  Bible  for  myself.  It 
is  the  only  way  in  which  I  can  be  certain  it  is  there." 

"  We  have  now,"  said  Mr.  Courtney,  examined  every 
text  in  the  New  Testament  where  the  word  is  translated, 
and  not  merely  transferred  in  our  version.  In  several 
of  these  places  we  find  it  is  rendered  '  dip,'  as  it  is  in 
the  fourteen  places  mentioned  by  Dr.  Barnes,  where  it 
occurs  in  the  Old  Testament.  In  all  the  other  places  it 


FIFTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  139 

is  rendered  wash,  and  we  have  ascertained,  in  every 
case,  that  the  washing  was  by  '  dipping.'  " 

"  But,  Mr.  Courtney,  did  not  you  ascertain  this  from 
Rabbi  Maimonides,  and  not  from  the  Scriptures  them 
selves  ?  I  want  my  faith  to  stand  alone  upon  the  Word 
of  God." 

"No,  Miss  Ernest,  we  learned  it  from  the  word  of 
God  itself.  I  quoted  the  Jewish  Rabbi  to  satisfy  your 
uncle — because  (if  he  will  pardon  me  for  saying  so)  he 
seemed  to  feel  that  some  human  testimony  was  needful 
to  sustain  the  (to  him)  strange  assertion  of  the  Word 
of  God,  that  the  superstitious  Pharisees  immersed  their 
tables  or  couches,  and  themselves,  but  we  had  abundant 
proof  without  the  Rabbi's  testimony." 

"  What  was  it,  Mr.  Courtney  ? — please  call  it  to  my 
mind  again.  The  Bible  argument  is  all  that  I  care  to 
remember." 

"  You  are  right,  Miss  Ernest — it  is  all  you  need  to 
remember.  You  know  we  have  on  former  occasions 
determined  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptism,  by  a 
variety  of  methods.  We  found  it  to  be  immersion  or 
dipping.  Now,  your  uncle  admitted  this,  so  far  as 
regards  all  other  books  but  the  New  Testament.  Here 
he  conceived  it  might  have  a  new  signification.  I  con 
ceded  that  it  might,  but  denied  that  it  did ;  for  the  fact 
that  a  thing  may  possibly,  or  even  probably,  be  true, 
is  no  evidence  that  it  is  true.  Then  to  show  that  it 
must  have  a  new  meaning,  he  referred  to  three  places 
where,  in  our  version,  it  is  rendered  'washing.'  In 
Mark  vii.  4,  he  said  it  seemed  unreasonable  to  think 
that  the  Pharisees  immersed  their  tables  and  beds  (for 
the  word  '  kleina,'  rendered  tables,  may  mean  couches  as 
well) ;  and  therefore  he  thought  he  ought  to  give  the 
word  some  other  meaning. 

"  To  this  I  might  have  merely  replied,  the  Word  of 


HO  TIIEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

God  says  the  '  kleina'  were  immersed,  and  therefore  it 
was  done.  I  will  not  take  the  liberty  to  change  God's 
word  because  it  states  improbabilities.  But  we  were 
very  accommodating,  and  reminded  him  that  whatever 
was  done  to  the  tables,  or  '  kleina,'  was  the  same  thing 
that  was  done  to  the  '  cups'  and  other  vessels,  and  then 
turned  to  Leviticus  and  showed  that  they  were  '  put 
into  the  water,'  and  of  course  the  'kleina' were  'put 
into  the  water,'  also.  This,  I  am  sure,  was  proof 
enough,  without  going  to  the  Rabbi,  to  see  how  it  was 
done,  and  this  was  all  Scripture  proof.  We  went  to  the 
llabbi  only  to  'make  assurance  doubly  sure.'  Then 
your  uncle  thought  it  more  reasonable  to  believe  that 
the  Pharisees  did  something  else  instead  of  dipping 
themselves  (as  Mark  says)  when  they  came  from  the 
market. 

"  I  might  have  answered  as  before — God  says  they 
dipped,  and  I  will  not  dare  to  doubt  it,  though  it  be 
improbable. 

"  But  as  the  text  says,  they  did  it  '  holding  the  tradi 
tion  of  the  elders.'  I  referred  to  the  Jewish  Rabbi 
merely  to  learn  what  the  '  tradition  of  the  elders' 
required  on  this  point,  and  we  found  it  was  just  what 
the  word  expressed. 

"  In  the  third  place,  your  uncle  had  conceived  that 
the  baptismois  or  washings  spoken  of  in  Hebrews  ix.  10, 
could  not  be  immersions,  because  some  Doctor  of 
Divinity  had  told  him  there  were  no  immersions  ;  and 
we  went  back  to  the  Old  Testament  and  found  immer 
sions  in  abundance — even  without  those  rites  which 
are  called  '  washings ;'  but  even  these  were  immersions 
also,  as  I  have  proved  by  the  case  of  Naaman,  and 
referred  to  the  Rabbi  as  confirmatory  evidence." 

"Very  satisfactory,  I  declare,"  said  the  Professor, 
laughing.  "  You  see,  Thco.,  Mr.  Courtney  fully 


FIFTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  141 

appreciates  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  convincing 
your  uncle. 

"  But  let  us  see  what  he  has  to  say  about  these  other 
places  which  I  have  marked,  and  in  which  the  word  is 
used  without  translation,  and  refers  directly  to  the 
ordinance  itself.  The  first  is  Matthew  iii.  5,  6,  which 
reads  of  the  baptism  of  the  multitudes  by  John." 

"  In  regard  to  that,"  said  Mr.  Courtney,  "  it  will  not 
be  worth  while  to  consume  our  time  to-night — I  will 
refer  you  to  Miss  Theodosia,  who  has  examined  it 
already.  I  will  only  say,  that  if  you  prefer  '  washing"1 
as  your  translation  of  the  word,  there  could  be  no  quicker 
way  for  John  to  wash  them  than  by  dipping  them  in  the 
water." 

"  The  next  place  I  have  marked,"  said  Uncle  Jones, 
"  is  the  llth  verse  of  the  same  chapter,  '  I  indeed  bap 
tize  you  with  water,  but  he  that  cometh  after  me  shall 
baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire.'  " 

"  I  trust  you  find  no  difficulty  there,"  said  Mr. 
Courtney. 

"No,"  replied  the  Professor,  "  except  that  it  presents 
a  strong  argument  in  favor  of  immersion.  The  original 
certainly  reads  (if  we  translate  as  we  would  in  any 
other  book),  I  immerse  you  in  water,  and  he  shall  im 
merse  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost  and  in  fire. 

"The  next  is  the  16th  verse  of  the  same  chapter — 
'And  Jesus,  when  he  was  baptized,  went  up  straightway 
out  of  the  water.'  I  find  a  strong  argument  for  immer 
sion  in  this  also ;  for  if  they  did  not  immerse,  I  see  no 
reason  for  going  into  the  water — or,  if  we  read  that  he 
went  up  from,  instead  of  out  of,  the  water,  I  still  see 
no  reason  for  even  going  to  it.  We  do  not  go  to  the 
river  to  sprinkle  now — I  can't  think  they  did  then. 

"  The  next  place  I  have  marked  refers  to  the  '  much 
water'  of  JEnon,  near  Salim ;  and  I  think  no  one  can 


142  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

deny  that  John  selected  that  place  for  the  convenience 
of  baptizing ;  and  so  far  as  it  has  any  bearing  on  the 
case  at  all,  it  favors  immersion.  No  other  place  pre 
sents  any  difficulty  not  already  obviated,  till  we  come 
to  the  baptism  of  the  three  thousand.  Here  seemed  to 
be  some  doubtful  circumstances,  till  I  talked  the  subject 
over  with  my  niece  last  night,  but  all  is  now  quite  plain ; 
but  there  are  some  other  instances  recorded  in  the  Acts, 
where  immersion  does  not  seem  to  have  been  so  proba 
ble  as  sprinkling  or  pouring." 

"  Please  don't  speak  any  more  about  probabilities, 
Professor  Jones,"  exclaimed  Mr.  Courtney.  "  You  ad 
mit  that  '  baptize,'1  the  word  used  to  describe  this  ordi 
nance,  means  to  immerse,  as  its  common  primary 
signification  in  every  other  book  but  this,  and  that  the 
people  who  read  the  Greek  language,  would  understand 
this  to  be  its  meaning  in  this,  unless  some  intimation  ivas 
given  that  it  must  not  be  so  understood,  or  unless  this 
meaning  was  morally  impossible.  And  now  you  say  it 
seems  more  probable  that  sprinkling  sometimes  oc 
curred.  Suppose  it  were  more  probable,  does  not  Luke, 
by  using  this  word  baptize,  declare  that  it  was  not 
sprinkling  or  pouring,  but  clearly  and  plainly  a  dip 
ping  ?  Will  you  dare  to  give  the  word  a  meaning  that 
it  never  had  before,  and  has  not  now,  in  any  Greek  book 
in  the  world,  merely  because  you  think  it  more  probable 
that  something  else  was  done,  instead  of  what  Luke 
says  was  done  ?  Show  me  a  case  where  immersion  was 
impossible,  and  it  will  have  some  weight." 

"  No,  no,  Mr.  Courtney,  the  New  Testament  meaning 
of  the  word  is  the  very  point  in  dispute.  I  shall  not 
allow  you  to  beg  the  question  on  the  very  position  about 
which  we  are  at  issue." 

"  I  did  not  intend,  nor  do  I  desire  to  do  any  such 
thing.  It  is  no  begging  of  the  question  to  object  to 


FIFTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY. 


14.} 


your  mode  of  settling  it.  This  word  was  used  hundreds 
of  years  before  Luke  wrote  this  book.  Its  meaning  was 
as  well  fixed  and  defined  as  that  of  any  word  in  the 
Greek  language.  Luke  was  writing  to  those  who  read, 
and  spoke,  and  understood  this  language  (and  this  word 
among  the  rest)  in  its  ordinary  sense,  according  to  the 
familiar  every-day  usage  of  the  people  who  employed  it. 
"  We  agree,  and  no  critic  or  scholar  of  any  note  has 
ever  denied,  that  the  common,  familiar  meaning  of  this 
word  was  to  immerse,  submerge,  to  dip.  This  we  have 
proved.  But  now  we  want  to  know  in  what  sense  Luke 
employs  it.  I  answer,  that  the  presumption  is,  that  he 
employs  it  just  as  every  other  writer  does ;  for  if  he 
does  not,  nobody  will  understand  what  he  means.  He 
must  use  words  in  the  sense  that  other  people  use  them, 
or  other  people  will  not  know  what  he  means ;  but  as  he 
wishes  to  be  understood,  and  writes  under  the  inspira 
tion  of  infinite  wisdom,  he  will  use  words  thus.  If  this 
word,  therefore,  commonly  and  familiarly  meant  to  im 
merse,  then  it  was  immersion  that  he  meant  when  he 
used  the  word.  To  this  you  reply,  that  in  some  cases 
it  seems  more  probable  that  something  else  was  done, 
and  not  the  act  which  this  word  describes  ;  and  you  will 
therefore  make  it  mean  just  what  you  think  is  most 
likely  to  have  taken  place.  I  object  to  this  mode  of 
deciding  the  meaning  of  a  New  Testament  word.  If 
we  decide  according  to  this  rule,  I  can  show  you  that 
Lazarus  was  never  raised  from  the  dead ;  for  it  is  to  me 
much  more  likely  that  he  was  only  asleep,  or  in  a  sort 
of  trance — and  when  Jesus  called  him  with  a  loud  voice, 
it  only  awakened  him.  You  tell  me,  however,  that  the 
Scripture  plainly  declares,  again  and  again,  that  he  was 
dead,  and  that  Christ  raised  him  from  the  dead.  But  I 
have  only  to  assure  you  that,  though  the  word  rendered 
dead  does  mean  dead — destitute  of  life — in  every  other 


144  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

book,  and  in  almost  every  other  place  in  this  book,  yet 
in  this  particular  place  it  is  much  more  probable  that  it 
means  asleep,  or  in  a  trance ;  and,  therefore,  dead  can 
not  mean  destitute  of  life.  If  I  am  at  liberty  to  trifle 
in  this  way  with  any  words  of  the  Sacred  Record,  it 
ceases  to  mean  any  thing  but  what  I,  or  you,  or  any 
other  man  may  fancy  it  ought  to  mean.  Every  man 
may  make  it  mean  just  what  he  pleases.  But  pardon 
me  for  talking  so  long — I  did  not  intend  it  when  I 
began.  Go  on  with  your  references,  and  I  will  show  you 
that  there  is  not  even  a  probability  that  it  was  any 
thing  else  but  immersion  that  was  performed  in  any 
single  case." 

"I  was,"  said  Uncle  Jones,  "just  about  to  mention 
the  case  of  Paul,  who  was  baptized  '  standing  up,'  and 
of  course,  it  could  not  be  by  immersion,  Acts  ix. : 
'And  Ananias  went  his  way  and  entered  into  the  house, 
and  putting  his  hand  upon  him,  said,  Brother  Saul,  the 
Lord,  even  Jesus,  who  appeared  unto  thee  in  the  way 
as  thou  earnest,  hath  sent  me  that  thou  mightcst  re 
ceive  thy  sight,  and  be  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  And 
immediately  there  fell  from  his  eyes,  as  it  had  been 
scales,  and  he  received  sight  forthwith,  and  arose  and 
was  baptized.'  Now  the  Greek  word  '  anastas'  here  ren 
dered  arose,  might  very  properly  be  rendered  standing 
up  ;  and  if  so,  he  must  have  been  baptized  standing." 

"  That,  if  so,  Professor,  is  a  very  convenient  phrase. 
Let  us  see  how  it  will  work  in  other  places.  We  read 
in  the  Old  Testament  that  '  David  arose  and  fled  for 
fear  of  Saul.'  The  same  word  occurs  here.  It  may 
mean  '  standing  up  ;'  and,  if  so,  then  David  fled  stand 
ing.  So,  also,  in  this  passage,  '  Saul  rose  up  out  of  the 
cave  and  went.'  It  may  mean  'standing;1  and,  if  so, 
then  Saul  went  standing  out  of  the  cave.  And  in  this, 
'  Saul  arose  and  got  him  from  Gilgal. '  It  may  mean 


FIFTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  145 

'  standing ;'  and,  if  so,  then  Saul  went  up  from  Gilgal 
'  standing.'  " 

"Yes,"  said  Theodosia,  "and  when  Ananias  and 
Sapphira  died  that  fearful  death,  the  young  men  were 
standing  still  all  the  while  they  were  winding  up  the 
body,  carrying  him  away,  and  burying  him ;  for  it  reads, 
'  The  young  men  arose,  wound  him  up,  carried  him  out, 
and  buried  him.'  (Acts  v.  6.)  Is  it  not  the  same  word 
that  is  used  in  the  original  ?" 

"  The  very  same,  Miss  Ernest — and  so  it  is  where 
the  prodigal  son  says  I  will  arise  and  go  to  my  father 
— yet  he  does  not  mean  to  say  that  he  will  go  '  stand 
ing  up.'  If  you  will  be  kind  enough  to  get  Barnes' 
Notes,  you  will  find  a  very  true  and  apposite  explana 
tion  of  this  word.  'He  arose  and  went  to  his  father.' 
'  The  word  arose?  says  Barnes,  '  does  not  imply  that  he 
had  been  sitting.  It  does  not  refer  to  any  change  of 
position,  but  expresses  the  act  of  setting  out,  or  begin 
ning  to  do  any  thing.  It  was  a  common  expression 
among  the  Hebrews  to  denote  entering  upon  a  piece 
of  business.'  Now,  if  Luke  had  said,  he  sat  still  and 
was  baptized,  it  might  have  made  some  difficulty ;  but 
if  he  rose  up,  or  prepared  himself,  he  would  do  this 
equally,  whether  he  was  sprinkled  or  immersed.  Im 
mersion  is  quite  as  probable,  so  far  as  this  word  is  con 
cerned,  as  sprinkling,  or  any  thing  else." 

"  I  must  acknowledge  that  you  are  right,"  said  Uncle 
Jones,  "  and  you  have  convinced  me  so  often  that  I  am 
almost  ashamed  to  mention  another  difficulty  which  has 
been  suggested — and  that  is,  that  there  is  nothing  said 
about  a  change  of  garment,  or  of  their  going  out  of  the 
house ;  and  then  Saul  was  so  feeble  that  it  would  seem 
almost  cruel  to  make  him  walk  half  a  mile  to  the  river, 
before  he  even  partook  of  any  food.  I  judge,  therefore, 
13 


146  TIIKODOSIA    EUNKST. 

that  the  rite  must  have  been  performed  in  the  house, 
and  if  so,  it  could  not  be  immersion." 

"  There  is  your  '  if  so '  again.  But  suppose  it  was 
done  in  the  house,  are  you  sure  that  there  was  not  a 
bathing-tub,  or  a  tank,  or  some  other  means  of  immer 
sion  in  the  house  ?  There  is  surely  no  evidence  that 
there  was  not.  How  do  you  know  that  it  was  half  a 
mile  to  the  river  ?  How  do  you  know  that  there  was 
not  a  fountain  in  the  yard  ?  Most  rich  men's  houses  in 
the  East  are  provided  with  them.  You  simply  read 
that  he  'was  baptized,'  and  every  Greek  reader  would 
understand  this  to  mean  that  he  was  immersed.  If  you 
should  come  down  next  Sunday  to  the  Baptist  church, 
and  apply  for  membership,  and  be  received  and  bap 
tized — I  would,  as  clerk  of  the  church,  record  the  facts 
— I  would  write  that  you  came,  made  credible  profession 
of  faith  in  Christ,  gave  satisfactory  evidence  of  genuine 
conversion,  was  received  and  baptized.  I  need  not  re 
cord  that  you  put  on  suitable  clothing — that  you  went 
to  the  river,  or  to  the  pool,  or  to  the  baptizing.  Every 
body  would  know  that  you  were  immersed,  if  I  simply 
said  you  were  '  baptized.'  " 

"  Well,  well,  I  see  I  have  been  making  '  mountains 
out  of  mole  hills,'  but  really  the  Doctors  of  Divinity,  as 
you  so  kindly  suggested  a  while  ago,  have  much  of  the 
blame  to  bear.  I  am  almost  ashamed  to  go  on  with  my 
catalogue  of  difficulties,  lest  I  provoke  both  you  and 
Theodosia  to  laugh  at  me  for  my  simplicity." 

"  Far  from  it,  my  dear  sir.  It  is  not  long  since  I 
stood  just  where  you  arc  standing  now.  I  know  from 
sad  experience  with  how  much  difficulty  the  light  of 
truth  makes  its  way  through  the  mists  and  fogs  by 
which  one's  early  education  has  surrounded  him ;  and 
how  slowly  it  dispels  the  clouds  and  darkness  of  long- 
established  prejudices.  It  is  rare  indeed  to  find  any 


FIFTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  149 

one  educated  as  you  were,  and  accustomed  as  you  have 
been  from  childhood,  to  think  that  whoever  might  be 
wrong,  the  Presbyterians  must  be  right,  yet  exhibiting 
the  candor  to  acknowledge  error,  and  the  conscience  to 
repudiate  it  so  soon  as  it  shall  be  clearly  seen.  I  hope 
you  will  not  refrain  from  expressing  even  the  shadow 
of  a  doubt,  if  it  keeps  your  mind  from  seeing  clearly 
the  way  of  Christian  duty  as  required  in  God's  Word. 
What  was  the  next  case  on  your  memorandum  ?" 

"  It  was  that  of  Cornelius  and  his  friends.  Peter 
says,  who  shall  '  forbid  water  ?'  And  it  seemed  to  me 
more  natural  for  him  to  use  this  expression,  if  the  water 
was  to  be  brought  to  sprinkle  them,  than  if  they  were  to 
be  taken  to  the  water  to  be  dipped  in  it." 

"But,"  replied  Mr.  Courtney,  "Peter  does  not  say 
the  water  w as  to  be  brought.  He  only  says,  who  will 
forbid  water  (that  is  to  be  used  in  the  baptizing  of  these 
people)  ?  It  was  simply  equivalent  to  saying,  who  will 
forbid  their  baptism  ?  But  the  water  might  have  been 
brought  to  immerse  them.  What  would  hinder  it  ?  I 
was  present  once  when  a  Baptist  minister  said  to  the 
sexton  of  the  church,  '  Let  water  be  brought  for  the 
baptism  of  six  persons  this  evening' — would  you  deny 
that  those  six  persons  were  to  be  immersed  ?  In  re 
cording  the  event,  I  might  have  said,  the  water  was 
brought,  and  they  were  baptized — for  they  were  actually 
immersed  in  a  tank  prepared  for  the  purpose  under  the 
floor  of  the  church.  Xow,  if  one  of  the  deacons  had 
exclaimed,  I  forbid  the  water  to  be  brought  for  the 
baptism  of  these  candidates,  you  must  (had  you  been 
present  and  reasoned  as  you  do  upon  this  passage)  have 
concluded  that  it  was  sprinkling,  and  not  immersion  at 
all,  which  was  spoken  of." 

"  I  am  satisfied,  Mr.  Courtney,  and  do  not  see  any 
thing  in  my  next  ca"se  (which  was  that  of  Lydia  and 


1-18  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

her  household)  that  has  not  already  been  disposed  of. 
I  was  going  to  object  that  there  was  nothing  said  about 
change  of  apparel  and  going  to  or  coming  from  the 
water — but  I  acknowledge  that  when  I  read  in  a  Baptist 
paper  that  forty  converts  were  baptized  one  Sabbath 
morning,  I  do  not  doubt  they  were  immersed,  and  yet  I 
never  see  a  word  said  about  the  clothing  they  wore,  and 
often  nothing  about  the  place  where  the  rite  was  per 
formed.  So  I  will  pass  to  the  jailor's  baptism,  Acts 
xvi.  33.  The  only  difficulty  here  is,  that  as  he  was  bap 
tized  in  the  jail,  it  is  very  improbable  that  it  was  by 
immersion,  since  it  is  not  likely  there  was  any  conveni 
ence  for  an  immersion  in  an  eastern  prison." 

"  Suppose,  Professor  Jones,  that  you  should  read  in 
a  newspaper  that  '  The  poor  wretch  who  was  last  week 
sentenced  to  death  for  the  murder  of  old  Mr  Gripall, 
had  made  a  profession  of  religion,  and  had  been  baptized 
by  Elder  J.  R.  Graves,  the  editor  of  the  Tennessee  Bap 
tist,'  would  you  imagine  that  Mr.  Graves  had  sprinkled 
him  ?  Not  for  one  moment ;  you  could  easily  believe 
that  the  water  was' brought,  and  the  immersion  was  done^ 
in  the  murderer's  cell,  even  though  not  a  word  was  said 
about  the  bringing  it.  As  the  jailor  was  master  of  the 
prison,  could  he  not  have  water  brought,  had  it  been 
needful ? 

"  But  the  truth  is,  the  baptism  was  not  done  in  the 
jail.  Read  the  passage  carefully  He  sprang  into  the 
prison,  and  he  brought  the  Apostles  out  of  it  (30th 
verse).  Some  say  he  only  brought  them  out  of  the  inner 
prison.  I  say  he  brought  them  out  of  that,  and  into  his 
own  house,  for  (32d  verse)  they  spoke  the  word  of  the 
Lord  to  all  that  were  in  his  house.  lie  took  them  into 
his  family  apartments,  and  there  they  preached  the 
Word. 

"  And  then  (verse  33d)  he  took  them  somewhere  else, 


FIFTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  149 

whore  he  washed  their  stripes  and  was  himself  baptized  ; 
and  then  (34th  verse)  he  brought  them  back  into  his 
house,  and  set  meat  before  them.  You  see,  therefore,  that 
it  was  not  done  in  prison,  though  if  it  had  been,  it  would 
have  been  no  proof  that  it  was  not  immersion." 

"  I  wonder,"  said  Mr.  Jones,  "  that  I  had  never  seen 
the  case  in  this  light  before.  Now,  since  I  have  observed 
it  carefully,  it  is  all  very  plain ;  and  I  have  found  no 
other  instance  where  the  word  occurs  in  its  literal  sense, 
and  which  presents  any  difficulties  which  have  not  been 
already  considered. 

"  There  is,  indeed,  the  case  of  the  Eunuch,  who  was 
baptized  by  Philip,  but  the  narrative,  in  all  the  details 
of  it,  absolutely  requires  immersion  to  preserve  the  con 
sistency  and  probability  of  the  story.  They  went  down 
into  the  water,  and  not  the  one,  but  both  of  them  went 
into  the  water.  Then  Philip  immersed  him,  and  then 
they  came  up  out  of  the  water.  I  wonder  that  any 
Greek  scholar  should  ever  have  doubted  that  they  went 
into  and  came  out  of  the  water ;  for,  if  this  is  not  what 
is  said,  it  is  because  the  Greek  language  could  not  ex 
press  it.  In  any  other  book,  no  scholar  would  hesitate 
a  moment  thus  to  translate  the  passage.  What  is  here 
said  to  be  done,  I  must  concede  is  precisely  what  Bap 
tists  are  accustomed  to  do.  And,  but  for  one  thing,  I 
am  convinced  that  immersion  is  the  only  baptism." 

"And  what  is  that,  pray  ?" 

"  Simply  that  I  find  baptism  spoken  of  figuratively  or 
metaphorically  in  such  a  way  as  to  lead  me  to  suspect 
it  must  be  something  else.  Indeed,  in  Acts  ii.  17,  it  is 
almost  expressly  said  to  be  a  pouring." 

"  No,  Professor,  baptism  is  not  here  said  to  be  pour 
ing,  nor  is  pouring  said  to  'be  baptism,  though  Doctors 
of  Divinity  have  ventured  such  assertions. 

"  Christ  did  tell  the  disciples  that  they  would  be  im- 


150  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

mersed  in  the  Holy  Ghost — and  Peter  did  speak  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  being  poured  out — but  neither  of  them 
said  that  this  pouring  was  the  immersion.  It  might  as 
well  have  been  any  other  of  the  wonderful  things  that 
happened  that  day,  which  could  in  any  respect  be  com 
pared  to  an  immersion. 

"  But  before  we  go  further,  let  me  say  one  word  as  to 
the  value  of  figurative  usage  in  determining  the  mean 
ing  of  this  or  any  other  word. 

"Common  sense  teaches  us  that  the  figurative  and 
fanciful  must  yield  to  the  real  and  actual.  When, 
therefore,  we  have  settled  the  meaning  of  a  word  by  its 
real,  literal,  evcry-day  usage,  we  cannot  unsettle  it  by  a 
figure  of  speech — a  chance  allusion  or  comparison.  The 
fanciful  must  be  governed  by  the  actual.  This  is  self- 
evident.  Now,  we  have  seen  and  settled  that  the  lit 
eral  meaning  of  this  word  is  to  immerse.  And  hence 
forth,  whenever  and  wherever  we  find  it  figuratively  em 
ployed,  the  allusion  must  be  in  some  way  or  other  to 
immersion  or  some  circumstance  attending  immersion. 
On  this  alone  will  its  beauty  and  appropriateness  as  a 
figure  depend. 

"  Now,  remembering  this,  let  us  examine  the  case  in 
hand.  The  allusion  cannot  be  to  '  the  pouring,'  which 
itself  is  but  a  figure — for  no  literal  and  actual  pouring 
of  the  third  person  of  the  Trinity  could  occur.  The 
allusion  was  not  to  the  manner  of  the  Spirit's  coming, 
but  to  the  copiousness,  abundance,  and  overwhelming- 
nature  of  his  influences ;  filling,  overflowing,  surround 
ing,  and,  as  it  were,  swallowing  up  their  souls.  The 
Greeks  often  used  the  word  baptized  in  this  way;  as 
baptized  in  debt,  baptized  in  affliction,  baptized  in  wine 
(that  is,  overcome  of  wine),  baptized  in  iniquity,  or  as 
we  would  express  it,  sunk  in  iniquity.  We  use  the 
word  immerse  in  the  same  way,  when  we  say  of  one 


FIFTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  151 

that  he  is  immersed  in  dissipation ;  immersed  in  busi 
ness  ;  immersed  in  politics,  and  the  like ;  we  simply 
mean  by  such  expressions  that  the  dissipation,  business, 
or  politics,  controls  and  occupies  all  the  powers  and 
capacities  of  the  man.  We  do  not  mean  to  say  that 
they  were  poured  on  him,  or  sprinkled  on  him,  but 
only  that  they  exert  an  overwhelming  influence  over 
him.  And  just  in  this  sense  he  told  the  disciples  they 
should  be  immersed  in  the  Holy  Ghost." 

"  I  thank  you,  Mr.  Courtney,  for  that  lucid  exposi 
tion.  I  can  hardly  understand  how  the  matter  came 
to  be  so  mystified  in  my  mind  as  it  has  been  till  now. 
I  will  trouble  you  with  but  one  other  case,  and 
that  is  where  the  Israelites  are  said  (1  Cor.  x.  2)  to 
have  been  '  all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and 
in  the  sea.'  If  this  was  an  immersion,  you  must  admit 
that  it  was  a  very  dry  one,  for  the  Scripture  says  ex 
pressly  they  went  through  on  dry  ground." 

"  Certainly,  I  will  admit  that  it  was  a  dry  immersion, 
for  it  was  a  figurative,  and  not  a  real  one.  The  bap 
tism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  we  were  just  speaking 
of,  was  a  dry  immersion.  The  baptism  in  sufferings, 
which  Jesus  spoke  of  so  touchingly  to  James  and  John, 
was  a  dry  immersion.  The  figure  in  either  case  was 
not  in  the  wetting,  but  in  the  overwhelming  abundance 
of  the  Spirit  in  one,  and  of  sorrow  in  the  other.  The 
allusion  in  this  case  is  not  so  much  to  the  act,  as  to 
one  of  the  attendant  circumstances.  They  did  indeed 
go  down  into  the  sea,  as  one  goes  down  into  the  water 
to  be  baptized.  The  water  stood  on  each  side  of  them 
and  the  cloud  covered  them — so  that  they  might  very 
appropriately  and  beautifully  be  said,  in  a  figure,  to  be 
immersed  in  the  cloud  and  the  sea.  But  the  chief  allu 
sion  is  to  another  and  altogether  different  circumstance. 
As  the  Christian,  by  going  down  into  the  baptismal 


152 


THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 


water,  professes  his  belief  in  Christ,  and  takes  upon 
himself  a  solemn  obligation  of  obedience  to  the  laws 
of  Christ.  So  the  Jews,  Paul  says,  by  going  down  into 
the  sea,  and  walking  beneath  the  cloud,  professed  their 
faith  in  Moses,  and  took  upon  them  obligations  of  obe 
dience  to  him.  They  were  thus  '  baptized  unto  Moses.' 
The  main  allusion  is  not  to  the  act,  but  to  the  obliga 
tion  of  the  ordinance.  Would  the  figure  be  any  more 
beautiful,  or  any  more  appropriate,  if  we  should  say  that 
they  were  all  sprinkled  into  Moses,  or  were  all  poured 
into  Moses  ? 

"  Professor  Stuart,  on  this  passage,  says :  '  The  sug 
gestion  has  sometimes  been  made  that  the  Israelites 
were  sprinkled  by  the  cloud  and  by  the  sea,  and  that 
this  was  the  baptism  which  Paul  meant ;  but  the  cloud 
was  not  a  rain  cloud,  nor  do  we  find  any  intimation  that 
the  waters  of  the  Red  Sea  sprinkled  the  children  of 
Israel  at  that  time.'  " 

"It  seems  to  me,"  said  Theodosia,  "that  the  idea  of 
rain  is  absolutely  precluded  ;  for  if  it  had  rained  upon 
them  to  any  extent,  the  ground  would  have  been  wet, 
but  it  says  expressly  they  went  through  on  dry  ground.'1'' 

"  That  would  seem  to  set  the  matter  at  rest,  Theo.,  if 
it  were  not  that  the  Psalmist,  evidently  speaking  of  this 
very  occasion  (Psa.  Ixxvii.  It,  18),  says  expressly,  'The 
clouds  poured  out  water,  the  skies  sent  out  a  sound, 
thine  arrows  also  went  abroad ;  the  voice  of  thy  thunder 
was  in  the  heaven,  the  lightnings  lightened  the  world, 
the  earth  trembled  and  shook.' " 

"  But  the  Psalmist  does  not  say,  uncle,  that  these 
terrible  manifestations  of  Almighty  power  were  directed 
against  the  Jews — they  went  over  dry  shod.  To  them 
all  was  light  and  peace.  But  the  cloud  went  and  stood 
behind  them,  and  troubled  their  enemies,  the  Egyptians. 
The  thunder,  and  the  lightning,  and  the  great  storm  of 


FIFTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY. 


153 


rain  were  upon  them,  while  the  Israelites  were  passing 
on  dry  ground." 

"  Well,  Theodosia,  I  give  it  up.  I  have  no  longer 
any  ground  to  stand  upon ;  and  I  may  as  well  admit  at 
once,  that  immersion  is  the  only  act  which  is  anywhere 
in  the  Bible  called  a  Baptism.  I  have,  I  think,  now 
examined  every  place  that  could  throw  any  light  upon 
the  subject;  and  really  I  can't  find  even  a  probability 
of  any  other  meaning  of  the  word  in  any  case,  while  in 
many  this  meaning  is  established  by  most  overwhelming 
proof." 

"  ]S"o,  Professor,  there  is  one  place  you  seem  to  have 
overlooked,  which  is  exceedingly  significant ;  that  is 
Romans,  6th  chapter,  where  we  are  said  to  be  buried 
with  Christ  in  our  baptism.  Here  the  allusion  is  most 
evidently  not  to  any  attending  circumstance,  but  to  the 
act  itself.  We  are  buried  in  the  water  like  one  who  is 
dead,  and  raised  out  of  it  again  like  one  resurrected. 
So,  we  are  to  consider  ourselves  as  having  died  to  sin, 
and  as  having  been  brought  to  life  again  by  Christ;  but 
not  to  the  same  life  of  sin  which  we  led  before,  but  to 
1  newness  of  life1 — or  a  new  life — a  life  of  holiness  and 
obedience.  That  the  allusion  here  is  to  the  act  of  im 
mersion  is  so  evident  that  none  but  the  most  determined 
and  unreasonable  cavilers  pretend  to  deny  it.  I  do  not 
know  of  any  single  commentator,  whose  opinions  are- 
entitled  to  any  respect,  who  has  ventured  to  differ  in 
regard  to  this  point  from  Luther,  and  Calvin,  and  Dod- 
dridge,  and  McKnight,  and  Chalmers — who  all  agree 
that  the  allusion  is  to  the  ancient  form  of  baptism  by  im 
mersion,  or,  as  McKnight  expresses  it,  to  the  ordinance 
in  which  Christ  submitted  to  be  baptized — that  is,  to  be 
buried  under  the  water,  and  taken  out  again  by  John," 
etc.  (See  notes  on  this  place.) 

"  I  see,"  said  Uncle  Jones.     "  The  Scriptures  do  not 


154  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

even  leave  '  a  loop  to  hang  a  doubt  upon.'  The  common 
and  every-day  use  of  the  word  requires  immersion — the 
scriptural,  and  especially  the  New  Testament  usage  of 
the  word,  requires  immersion — the  places  where  the 
baptisms  were  performed  required  immersion,  for  why 
else  would  they  go  into  the  water? — and  even  the 
figures  and  metaphors  drawn  from  the  ordinance  de 
mand  immersion.  What  shall  we  say  then  ?  Must  we 
not  be  immersed  ?" 

"  I  can  only  answer  for  myself,  uncle.  If  it  was  im 
mersion  which  Jesus  Christ,  my  Saviour,  submitted  to 
in  Jordan,  and  which  he  commanded  all  his  disciples  to 
teach  and  to  practice,  I  cannot  hesitate  about  whether  I 
will  obey  my  Saviour — I  shall  be  immersed  the  first 
convenient  opportunity." 

"I  cannot  yet  speak  so  confidently,"  rejoined  her 
uncle.  "  It  may  be,  something  will  yet  turn  up  to  show 
the  matter  in  some  other  light.  I  must  take  more  time 
to  consider,  and  this  reminds  me  that  we  have  not  yet 
examined  the  history  of  the  ordinance  to  see  whether  it 
is  true  in  fact  that  sprinkling  has  been  substituted  for 
immersion,  or  whether,  after  all,  it  was  not  immersion 
that  was  substituted  for  sprinkling.  I  am  under  the 
impression  that  these  Baptists  are  the  same  sect  that 
sprung  up  about  the  time  of  Luther  and  the  Reforma 
tion — sometimes  called  Anabaptists,  but  more  frequently 
the  Mad  Men  of  Munster.  I  grant  I  have  not  investi 
gated  the  subject  very  carefully,  but  I  am  certain  I  have 
somewhere  seen  or  heard  their  origin  in  Europe  traced 
back  to  that  occasion,  and  in  this  country  I  have  been 
told  they  owe  their  beginning  to  Roger  Williams,  who 
was  not  properly  baptized  himself,  and  consequently 
could  not  give  valid  baptism  to  any  one  else.  Am  I  not 
right  in  these  conjectures,  Mr.  Courtney?" 

Mr.  Courtney  did  not  reply  until  after  he  had  taken 


FIFTH    NIUHT'S    STUDY.  155 

out  his  watch  and  observed  the  time  of  night.  "  It  is 
too  late,"  said  he,  "to  answer  that  question  and  others 
which  will  be  suggested  by  it,  to-night.  Suppose  we 
postpone  the  further  consideration  of  the  subject  till 
another  time." 

"  Very  well,"  said  Theodosia,  who  felt  that  she  had 
sufficient  food  for  one  day's  reflection  in  what  had 
already  passed.  "  Come  round,  both  of  you,  to-morrow 
night.  Come  early  and  take  supper  with  us  ;  and  mean 
time,  Mr.  Courtney,  you  may  leave  this  great  armful 
of  old  books.  May  be,  I  will  indulge  my  womanly 
curiosity  by  reading  their  titles.  I  don't  believe  I  have 
much  relish  for  their  contents,  unless  they  should  be 
vastly  more  attractive  than  their  external  appearance 
indicates.  Why,  some  of  them  look  as  though  they 
might  be  a  hundred  and  one  years  old." 

"  Old  documents  are  sometimes  very  valuable,"  said 
he,  "  especially  in  such  a  discussion  as  we  are  to  have  to 
morrow  night.  You  will  be  more  interested  in  them 
than  you  imagine." 


THE  SIXTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY. 

IN  WHICH  THE  QUESTION, 

HOW  CHRIST'S  ORDINANCE  WAS  CHANGED, 

AND 

POURING  FIRST,  AND  THEN  SPRINKLING, 

SUBSTITUTED  IN  PLACE  OF  IMMERSION, 

IS  PULLY  EXAMINED,  AND  TEUTHPULLT  ANSWEBED, 

BY  THE  SPRINKLERS  THEMSELVES. 


SIXTH   NIGHT'S    STUDY. 


interest  which  so  learned  and  excellent  a 
Presbyterian  as  Uncle  Jones  had  exhibited  in 
the  study  of  Baptism,  together  with  affection 
for  her  lovely  daughter,  had  so  far  removed 
Mrs.  Ernest's  objections  to  this  investigation, 
that  she  had  resolved  herself  to  be  present,  and 
take  some  quiet  part  in  the  conversation,  upon  the 
introduction  of  sprinkling.  Uncle  Jones  she  knew  was 
a  sincere  and  pious  man.  He  was  also  a  man  of  good 
sense,  sound  judgment,  and  of  very  extensive  informa 
tion.  And  (more  than  all  to  her)  he  was  a  Ruling 
Elder  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  If,  therefore,  Uncle 
Jones  had  ventured  to  doubt  about  his  baptism,  she 
began  to  think  her  daughter  could  not  have  com 
mitted  any  very  deadly  sin  in  doubting  about  hers. 
And,  as  Uncle  Jones  had  spoken  very  highly  of  the 
logical  accumen  and  historical  information  of  Mr. 
Courtney,  she  could  not  see  why  she  should  not  treat 
him  with  such  courtesy  as  was  due  to  an  intelligent 
gentleman,  even  though  he  was  a  poor  Baptist  school 
master.  As  for  his  prejudices,  which  had  led  him  to 
speak  so  disrespectfully  of  the  Doctors  of  Divinity 
and  eminent  ministers  of  "  our  church"  —  he  had  proba 
bly  received  them  in  his  childhood,  for  she  had  no 
doubt  he  had  been  reared  among  the  ignorant  and 
bigoted  Baptists,  who  never  knew  any  better,  and  from 
whom  nothing  better  could  be  expected. 

When  Mr.  Courtney  came  in,  therefore,  she  was  the 
first  to  welcome  him,  and  express  her  pleasure  that  he 

(159) 


160  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

had  come  so  early.  She  exerted  herself  to  entertain 
him  till  Theodosia  came  in,  and  then  went  to  prepare  a 
nice  dish  which  had  just  come  into  her  mind  for  supper. 
It  was  not  long  till  the  Professor  came  also ;  but  not  a 
word  was  said  about  the  object  of  their  meeting  till 
after  the  table  was  removed — when  Mr.  Courtney  intro 
duced  it  by  saying : 

"  If  I  did  not  misunderstand  you,  Professor  Jones, 
you  expressed  some  doubt  last  evening  whether  im 
mersion  was  not  first  introduced  as  baptism  by  the  Mad 
Men  of  Munster  during  the  Reformation  of  Luther ; 
and  whether  the  Baptists  of  the  United  States  did  not 
receive  baptism  from  Roger  Williams,  who  was  him 
self  not  properly  baptized,  and  therefore  could  not 
legally  baptize  others." 

"  This  is  my  impression,  sir.  I  do  not  know  exactly 
how  I  received  it — perhaps  I  got  something  of  it  from 
reading  D'Aubigne's  History  of  the  Reformation — 
perhaps  I  received  it  by  hearing  something  of  the  kind 
from  the  pulpit.  I  am  certain  that  I  have  seen  or 
heard  it  somewhere,  and  that  I  thought  at  the  time  I 
had  good  authority  for  believing  it — otherwise,  I  should 
not  have  given  it  a  place  in  my  memory." 

"I  have,"  replied  Mr.  Courtney,  "seen  and  heard 
such  statements  many  times  from  various  sources. 
They  are  often  recorded  in  Presbyterian  and  Methodist 
newspapers.  They  form  a  part  of  every  controversy  on 
the  subject  of  baptism ;  and  you  may  hear  them  almost 
as  often  as  you  hear  a  sermon  or  listen  to  a  discussion 
on  this  subject.  It  was  consequently  very  easy  for  you 
to  receive  and  retain  such  impressions." 

"  And  yet  I  suppose  you  will  assure  me  that  I  am 
altogether  mistaken,  and  have  been  grossly  deceived." 

"  No,  Professor  Jones,  /  will  not  assure  you.  I  do 
not  like  that  mode  of  discussion.  I  will  prove  to  you 


SIXTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  161 

(if  you  will  receive  the  testimony  of  the  most  reliable 
historians,  or  that  of  the  most  eminent  of  your  own 
writers  on  this  subject)  ;  I  will  prove  to  you  beyond  all 
possibility  of  doubt  that  those  who  make  such  state 
ments  are  either  most  grossly  ignorant  or  most  per 
versely  false." 

"  I  hope,  Mr.  Courtney,  you  don't  mean  to  say  that 
our  ministers  preach  falsehood,  or  that  our  religious 
editors  make  statements  that  are  not  true?"  said  Mrs. 
Ernest,  who  already  felt  her  blood  begin  to  boil. 

"No,  no,  sister,"  said  Uncle  Jones,  who  knew  her 
mood.  "  Mr.  Courtney  only  means  to  say  that  our 
ministers  and  editors  are  mistaken,  and  that  he  can 
prove  that  they  have  made  statements  without  having 
first  carefully  examined  all  the  evidence." 

"  Pardon  me,  madam,"  said  Mr.  Courtney,  "  I  did  not 
intend  to  use  any  language  which  would  give  offence  to 
any  one  present,  and  most  especially  to  you.  I  was  my 
self  for  many  years  a  Presbyterian.  I  know  the  min 
isters  of  that  order  too  well  to  doubt  that,  as  a  body, 
they  are  in  knowledge  and  piety  equal  to  any  in  the 
world.  There  are  among  them  many  who  are  now  my 
warmest  personal  friends — men  whom  I  love  as  Chris 
tian  brethren — men  whom  I  admire  as  great  and  valiant 
soldiers  of  the  cross — men  who  love  Jesus,  and  are  de 
voting  their  lives  to  his  work,  and  are  doing  great  good 
in  the  world.  And  yet  there  are  among  them  men  who, 
upon  this  subject,  rashly  venture  to  make  assertions 
which  most  clearly  and  directly  contradict  all  historical 
testimony,  and  which,  if  there  is  any  truth  in  history, 
must  be  admitted  to  be  false." 

"  How  can  that  be  possible  ?"  asked  Theodosia.  "  How 
can  a  good  man  dare  to  say  what  is  not  strictly  true  ?" 

"  I  do  not  doubt,  Miss  Ernest,  that  most  of  them 
really  believe  what  they  assert.  They  are  themselves 


162  TIIEOPOSTA    ERNEST. 

deceived.  They  have  been  trained  and  educated  in 
error.  They  have  trusted  to  the  assertions  of  others, 
who  had  an  interest  in  deceiving  them.  They  get  im 
pressions,  just  as  your  uncle  did,  from  books,  or  papers, 
or  lectures,  or  sermons,  in  which  such  statements  are 
made.  They  take  it  for  granted  they  are  true — and  so 
repeat  them  to  others — and  extend  and  perpetuate  the 
falsehood,  which  would  at  once  be  evident,  if  they  would 
go  behind  these  statements  and  examine  the  historical 
records  for  themselves. 

"  It  is,  in  part,  for  this  reason,  that  I  do  not  ask  you 
to  take,  my  word  for  any  fact  to  which  I  may  request 
your  attention.  Nor  will  I  ask  you  to  receive  the  testi 
mony  of  any  Baptist  historian  ;  you  shall  have  the  record 
to  read  for  yourselves,  and  that  record  made  in  every 
instance  by  an  opposer  of  our  poor  and  despised  de 
nomination.  I  will  prove  to  you,  first,  that  the  Baptists 
in  Europe  did  not  originate  at  the  time  of  the  Reforma 
tion,  but  had  existed  from  the  very  foundation  of  Chris 
tianity  ;  and  then  I  will  show  you  that  the  Baptists  in 
the  United  States  do  not  owe  their  origin  to  Roger 
Williams,  any  more  than  they  do  to  Lord  Baltimore  or 
Cotton  Mather ;  and  that  the  validity  of  their  ordinance 
stands  on  much  safer  ground,  in  point  of  regular  suc 
cession  from  the  Apostles,  than  that  of  any  of  the  Pedo- 
baptist  sects." 

"That  is  right,  Mr.  Courtney,"  said  Uncle  Jones; 
"  let  us  have  one  thing  at  a  time.  Bring  up  your  wit 
nesses." 

"  Well,  I  have  them  ready.  But  first,  let  us  under 
stand  distinctly  the  point  on  which  we  are  at  issue. 
You  understand  that  the  Baptist  denomination  sprang 
up  as  a  new  thing  about  the  time  of  the  Lutheran 
Reformation,  and  owes  its  origin  to  those  who  were  then 
called  'Anabaptists,  or  the  Mad  Men  of  Munster  ?' " 


SIXTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY  163 

"  Yes  ;  that  was  my  impression." 

"  Yery  well.  Now  I  will  show  you  that  this  is  so  far 
from  being  true,  that  there  has  been,  from  the  very 
earliest  ages  of  Christianity  up  to  the  present  time,  a 
body  of  professing  Christians  who  have  always  held,  as 
we  do  now,  that  baptism  is  not  valid  unless  it  be  pre 
ceded  by  instruction  and  faith  in  Christ ;  and,  conse 
quently,  that  the  baptism  of  infants  is  no  baptism  at  all. 

"  I  grant  that  this  body  of  Christian  people  has  not 
always  been  called  Baptists  ;  but  as  they  possessed  the 
distinguishing  characteristics  of  the  Baptists,  it  cannot 
be  denied  that  they  were  Baptists." 

"No,"  said  Uncle  Jones,  "if  they  were  professing 
Christians,  and  gave  evidence  of  the  new  birth,  baptized 
only  by  immersion,  and  refused  to  baptize  infants,  or 
recognize  such  baptism  as  valid,  they  were  doubtless 
Baptists,  by  whatever  name  they  chanced  to  be  called." 

"  Then  we  are  ready  to  proceed  with  the  case.  The 
first  witness  I  will  call  is  the  celebrated  ecclesiastical 
historian,  John  Lawrence  Mosheim,  Chancellor  of  the 
University  of  Gottingen.  He  was,  of  course,  no  Baptist, 
or  he  could  not  have  held  such  a  position.  His  history 
was  originally  written  in  Latin,  but  has  been  translated 
into  English  by  Dr.  McLaine,  of  England,  and  Dr.  Mur- 
dock,  in  America.  This  learned  and  reliable  historian 
says :  '  The  sacrament  of  baptism  was  administered,  in 
this  (the  first)  century,  without  the  public  assemblies, 
in  places  appointed  and  prepared  for  that  purpose,  and 
was  performed  by  an  immersion  of  the  whole  body  in  the 
baptismal  font.' 

"  Of  the  second  century,  he  says  :  '  The  persons  that 
were  to  be  baptized,  after  they  had  repeated  the  creed, 
confessed  and  renounced  their  sins,  and  particularly  the 
devil  and  his  pompous  allurements,  were  immersed  under 
water,  and  received  into  Christ's  kingdom.'  No  sprink- 


164  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

ling,  and  no  infants,  you  see,  thus  far.  They  were  such 
as  could  profess  their  faith,  and  they  were  '  immersed 
under  the  water.'  McLaine's  Mosheim,  vol.  p.  46-69. 

"As  a  witness  of  somewhat  similar  character,  I  will 
now  introduce  the  PedobaptistNeander,  whose  '  Church 
History'  and  his  '  Planting  and  Training  of  the  Chris 
tian  Church,'  have  given  his  name  a  world-wide  celeb 
rity. 

"  This  eminent  and  reliable  historian,  in  a  letter  to 
Mr.  Judd,  says,  expressly,  '  The  practice  of  immersion 
was  beyond  doubt  prevalent  in  the  whole  church.  The 
only  exception  was  made  with  the  sick — hence  called 
baptisma  clinicorum.' 

"And  in  '  The  Planting  and  Training  of  the  Christian 
Church,'  he  says:  'The  usual  form  of  submersion  at 
baptism  practiced  by  the  Jews,  was  transferred  to  the 
Gentile  Christians.  Indeed,  this  form  was  most  suita 
ble  to  signify  that  which  Christ  intended  to  render  an 
object  of  contemplation  by  such  a  symbol,  viz. :  the 
immersion  of  the  whole  man  in  the  spirit  of  a  new 
life.' 

"So  also  says  Coleman,  another  noted  Pedobaptist 
author,  the  friend  and  exponent  of  Neander,  who  is  re 
garded  as  high  authority  by  the  opponents  of  the  Bap 
tists,  and  who  takes  frequent  occasion  to  express  his 
aversion  to  their  faith  and  practice — yet  a  regard  for 
the  obvious  truth  compels  him  to  say,  page  372,  'Ancient 
Christianity  Exemplified.'  '  The  term  baptism  is  de 
rived  from  the  Greek  word  Bapto,  from  which  term  is 
formed  Baptizo,  with  its  derivatives  Baptismos  and 
Baptisma — baptism.  The  primary  signification  of  the 
original  is  to  dip,  to  plunge,  immerse.  The  obvious 
import  of  the  noun  is  immersion.' 

"  Yet,  in  another  place,  he  affects  to  regard  immersion 
as  a  departure  from  the  apostolic  usage  : 


SIXTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  165 

"'We  cannot  resist  the  conclusion,' he  says, 'that 
this  mode  of  baptism  was  the  first  departure  from  the 
teaching  and  example  of  the  Apostles  on  this  subject.' 
'If  it  was  a  departure  from  their  teachings,  it  was  the 
earliest — for  baptism  l>y  immersion,  unquestionably, 
was  very  early  the  common  mode  of  baptism.' 

"Again,  page  396,  he  says:  'In  the  Primitive 
Church,  immediately  subsequent  to  the  age  of  the 
Apostles,  this  [immersion]  was  undeniably  the  common 
mode  of  baptism.  (The  utmost  that  can  be  said  of 
sprinkling  in  that  early  period  is,  that  it  was  in  case 
of  necessity  permitted  as  an  exception  to  a  general 
rule).  This  fact  is  so  well  established  that  it  were 
needless  to  adduce  authorities  in  proof  of  it.  *  *  *  * 
It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  baptism  by  im 
mersion  was  discontinued  when  infant  baptism  became 
generally  prevalent.  The  practice  of  immersion  con 
tinued  even  to  the  thirteenth  or  fourteenth  century.  In 
deed  it  has  never  been  formally  abandoned,  but  is  still 
the  mode  of  administering  infant  baptism  in  the  Greek 
Church,  and  in  several  of  the  Eastern  Churches.' 

"  Here,  also,  is  another  Pedobaptist  historian,  Dr. 
Philip  Schaff,  Professor  in  a  Pedobaptist  Theological 
Seminary  at  Mercersburg,  Pennsylvania.  In  his  '  His 
tory  of  the  Apostolic  Church,'  page  568,  he  says :  '  Im 
mersion,  and  not  sprinkling,  was  unquestionably  the 
original  normal  form  [of  baptism].  This  is  shown  by 
the  very  meaning  of  the  Greek  words  Baptizo,  Bap- 
tisma,  and  Baptismos — used  to  designate  the  rite. 
Then  again,  by  the  analogy  of  the  baptism  of  John, 
which  was  performed  in  the  Jordan  ["  en"],  Matt.  in.  6, 
compare  with  16;  also,  eis  ton  Jordanan  [into  the  Jor 
dan],  Mark  i.  9;  furthermore,  by  the  New  Testament 
comparisons  of  baptism  with  the  passage  through  the 
Red  Sea,  1  Cor  x.  2 ;  with  the  flood,  1  Peter  ii.  21 ; 


166  TIIEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

with  a  bath,  Eph.  v.  36;  Titus  iii.  5;  with  a  burial  and 
resurrection,  Rom.  vi.  4;  Col.  ii.  12;  and,  finally,  by 
the  general  usage  of  Ecclesiastical  antiquity,  which  was 
ahvays  immersion,  as  it  is  to  this  day  in  the  Oriental, 
and  also  in  the  Grseco  Russian  Churches,  pouring  and 
sprinkling  being  substituted  only  in  cases  of  urgent 
necessity,  such  as  sickness  and  approaching  death.' " 

"  Are  you  sure,  Mr.  Courtney,  that  these  learned  his 
torians  were  not  Baptists  ?" 

"  Most  certainly  I  am.  Their  church  connections  are 
as  well  known  almost  as  their  histories.  But  even  if 
they  had  been  Baptists,  I  do  not  see  how  that  would 
invalidate  their  testimony.  I  hope  you  do  not  think 
that  Baptists  cannot  tell  the  truth  as  well  as  other 
people  ?" 

"  Oh,  no,  Mr.  Courtney,  forgive  me — I  did  not  mean 
that ;  but  it  seems  to  me  so  very  strange  that  good  men 
can  say  such  things  in  their  writings,  and  yet  act  as 
though  they  did  not  believe  a  single  word  of  what  they 
say.  But  perhaps  the  first  historians  of  the  church, 
from  whom  these  men  have  borrowed  their  statements, 
were  Baptists." 

"  Yes,  Miss  Ernest,  the  first  historians  and  earliest 
writers  011  the  customs  and  practices  of  the  Apostolic 
Churches  were  Baptists.  And  it  is  to  them  we  are 
really  indebted  for  all  our  knowledge  of  the  earliest 
ages.  Matthew,  and  Mark,  and  Luke,  and  John,  were 
Baptists — or  else  they  might  never  have  told  us  about 
those  baptisms  in  the  river.  Baptists  tell  about  such 
things  now.  Paul  was  a  Baptist,  or  he  would  never 
have  compared  baptism  to  a  burial  and  resurrection. 
Peter  was  a  Baptist,  or  he  would  never  have  compared 
it  to  the  flood.  All  those  New  Testament  saints  were 
Baptists,  as  we  have  seen  in  our  examination  of  the 
meaning  of  the  word  baptize.  The  very  word  made 


SIXTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY-.  16t 

them  Baptists.  They  could  not  be  any  thing  else  ;  and, 
after  their  day,  the  Fathers  (as  they  are  called),  that 
is,  the  earliest  writers  among  the  Christians,  whose 
works  have  come  down  to  us,  were  all  Baptists.  It  was 
near  three  hundred  years  before  there  were  any  professed 
Christians  who  were  not  Baptists." 

"On  what  authority  do  you  venture  such  an  as 
sertion  ?"  asked  Uncle  Jones. 

"I  might  say,"  replied  the  schoolmaster,  "that  I 
make  it  on  the  authority  of  your  own  most  eminent  and 
most  reliable  historians.  I  have  it  over  the  signatures 
of  Roman  Catholic,  Episcopalian,  Lutheran,  Dutch  Re 
formed,  and  Presbyterian  writers,  who,  while  they  have 
been  in  full  connection  with  those  very  establishments, 
all  of  which  have  (when  they  could)  been  the  most  viru 
lent  and  cruel  persecutors  of  the  Baptists,  and  some  of 
which  are  even  now  subjecting  our  brethren  in  Europe 
to  fines  and  imprisonment,  and  confiscation  of  property, 
because  they  will  not  conform  to  the  corrupt  and  cor 
rupting  superstitions  which  have  been  substituted  by 
Popish  authority  for  the  ordinances  of  Christ — have 
nevertheless  openly,  plainly,  and  repeatedly  declared, 
as  historians,  that  Ihe  apostolic  churches  were,  in  their 
membership,  ordinances,  organization,  and  government, 
just  such  as  the  Baptist  churches  are  now.  I  say,  I 
might  give  this  authority  ;  but  I  will  refer  you  to  the 
same  source  from  which  they,  as  historians,  derived 
their  information.  I  say  the  Christian  Fathers,  for  the 
first  three  centuries,  were  Baptists,  because  these  Fa 
thers  say  so  themselves. 

"Justin  Martyr,  who  is  counted  among  the  earliest  of 
the  Fathers,  writing  to  the  Emperor,  and  giving  him  an 
account  of  the  churches  in  his  day,  about  one  hundred 
and  fifty  years  after  Christ,  says  :  '  I  shall  now  lay  be 
fore  you  the  manner  of  dedicating  ourselves  to  God 


168  TllEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

through  Christ  upon  our  conversion ;  for,  should  I  omit 
this,  I  might  not  seem  to  deal  sincerely  in  this  account 
of  our  religion.  As  many  as  are  persuaded  and  believe 
that  those  things  which  are  taught  by  us  are  true,  and 
do  promise  to  live  according  to  them,  are  directed,  first, 
to  pray,  and  ask  God,  with  fasting,  the  forgiveness  of 
their  sins.  And  we  also  pray  and  fast  together  with 
them.  Then  we  bring  them  to  a  place  where  there  is 
water,  and  they  are  regenerated  in  the  same  way  that 
we  are  regenerated,  for  they  are  washed  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,'  etc. 

"  Tertullian,  who  lived  somewhat  later,  says  :  '  When 
we  are  ready  to  enter  into  the  water  (and  even  before), 
we  make  our  protestations  before  the  minister  and  in 
the  church,  that  we  renounce  the  devil  and  all  his  pomps 
and  vanities — afterward,  we  are  plunged  in  the  water.' 

"And  again,  '  Those  who  are  desirous  to  dip  them 
selves  holily  in  this  water,  must  prepare  themselves  for 
it  by  fasting,  by  watchings,  by  prayer,  and  by  sincere 
repentance  for  sin.' 

"  But  it  is  needless  to  multiply  authorities.  It  is  the 
united  testimony  of  all  the  Fathers  who  speak  of  the 
subject  at  all,  that  baptism  was  in  these  early  ages  per 
formed  only  by  immersion,  except  of  necessity  in  the 
near  prospect  of  death.  And  those  who,  under  such 
circumstances,  received  pouring  as  a  substitute,  were 
never  said  to  have  been  baptized,  but  to  have  been 
poured  upon  as  a  substitute  for  baptism. 

"  How  any  man,  who  has  any  character  to  lose,  can 
in  the  face  of  all  this  testimony  venture  the  assertion 
that  sprinkling  was  practiced  in  the  early  churches,  and 
that  immersion  is  a  modern  invention  introduced  by  the 
Mad  Men  of  Minister,  is  more  than  I  can  comprehend," 
said  Mr.  Courtney.  "  Merle  D'Aubigiie,  the  Historian 
of  the  Reformation,  the  very  man  to  whom  the  Mun- 


SIXTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  169 

ster  Men  are  indebted  for  most  of  their  present  no 
toriety — D'Aubigne  does  not  venture  any  such  assertion. 
On  one  point,  he  says,  'It  seems  necessary  to  guard 
against  misapprehension.  Some  persons  imagine  that 
the  Anabaptists  of  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  and  the 
Baptists  of  our  day,  are  the  same.  But  they  are  as 
different  as  possible.  *  *  *  It  is  but  justice  to  observe 
that  the  Baptists  of  Holland,  England,  and  the  United 
States  (says  Fessenden,  as  quoted  by  D'Aubigne),  are 
essentially  distinct  from  those  seditious  and  fanatical 
individuals  above-mentioned,  as  they  profess  an  equal 
aversion  to  the  principles  of  the  rebellion  of  the  one, 
and  the  enthusiasm  of  the  other.' — Pref.  to  Hist,  of  Ref., 
p.  10.  But  I  find  I  am  summing  up  on  the  case  before 
I  have  introduced  all  the  evidence.  I  have  referred  to 
historians ;  I  wish  now  to  call  your  attention  to  the 
testimony  of  several  of  the  most  eminent  and  learned 
theological  authors — writing,  not  as  historians,  but  as 
theological  disputants. 

"  I  will  first  introduce  Professor  Moses  Stuart,  who 
was  a  citizen  of  our  own  country,  and  an  eminent  pro 
fessor  in  one  of  your  own  theological  seminaries. 

"  Here  is  his  book.  It  was  written  in  answer  to  the 
question  addressed  to  him  by  missionaries  in  a  foreign 
land,  inquiring  in  what  way  they  should  translate  the 
Greek  words  which  in  our  version  read  baptize  and  bap 
tism.  It  was  evidently  written  with  great  care,  and  not 
without  much  previous  study  of  the  subject. 

"After  referring  to  a  number  of  eminent  and  reliable 
historians  in  regard  to  the  practice  of  the  early  church, 
he  thus  concludes :  '  But  enough — it  is  a  thing  made  out,' 
says  Augusti,  viz. : — the  ancient  practice  of  immersion. 
So,  indeed,  all  the  writers  who  have  thoroughly  investi 
gated  this  subject  conclude. 

"  '  I  know  of  no  one  usage  of  ancient  times,'  continues 
15 


170  THEOD08IA   ERNEST. 

Mr.  Stuart,  '  which  seems  to  be  more  clearly  and  more 
certainly  made  out.  /  cannot  see  liow  it  is  possible 
for  any  candid  man  who  examines  the  subject  to  deny 
this.' 

"  '  In  what  manner  then,'  he  asks  (p.  362),  'did  the 
churches  of  Christ  from  a  very  early  period  (to  say  the 
least),  understand  the  word  baptizo  in  the  New  Tes 
tament  ?  Plainly  they  construed  it  as  meaning  immer 
sion.' 

'"We  are  left  in  no  doubt,'  he  says  again,  '  about  the 
generally  received  usage  of  the  Christian  church  down 
to  a  period  several  centuries  after  the  apostolic  age.' 

"  Can  any  testimony  be  more  explicit,  or  more  satis 
factory  than  this  ? 

"  But  even  Dr.  Miller  himself,  the  great  champion  of 
Presbyterianism,  on  this  subject  declares,  '  That  it  is 
not  denied  that  for  the  first  few  centuries  after  Christ, 
the  most  common  mode  of  administering  baptism  was 
by  immersion.' ' 

"  Oh,  that  is  enough,  Mr.  Courtne}V  said  the  young 
lady.  "After  such  declarations  by  the  most  eminent 
historians,  and  our  own  theological  professors,  I  am  sure 
neither  Uncle  Jones  nor  any  one  else  can  entertain  a 
shadow-  of  a  doubt.  We  will  admit  that  the  practice  of 
the  first  church  was  immersion.  I  was  satisfied  of  that 
from  the  Scripture  itself,  since  this  was  the  meaning  of 
the  word,  and  consequently  it  was  immersion  that  Christ 
commanded.  What  I  desire  to  know  is,  how  the  change 
was  brought  about,  and  sprinkling  introduced." 

"All  in  good  time,  Miss  Ernest,  we  will  come  to  that 
presently.  Have  a  little  patience.  These  theological 
discussions  are  very  tricky  affairs.  I  want  to  set  this, 
point  so  far  beyond  all  doubt  or  disputation  that  no  one 
will  dare  again  to  intimate  that  the.  Baptists  originated 
in  the  time  of  Martin  Luther. 


SIXTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  171 

"  Here  is  what  Martin  Luther  says  about  it  himself. 
No  Protestant  will  doubt  that  he  is  a  competent  witness. 
'  The  word  baptize  is  a  Greek  word.  It  maybe  rendered 
immersion,  as  when  we  plunge  something  in  water  that 
it  may  be  entirely  covered  with  water — and  though  that 
custom  is  ?ioio  abolished  among  the  generality  (for  even 
children  are  not  entirely  immersed,  but  only  have  a 
little  water  poured  on  them),  nevertheless  they  ought  to 
be  completely  immersed,  and  immediately  drawn  out, 
for  the  etymology  of  the  word  requires  it.' 

"  Here  also  is  what  John  Calvin,  the  very  father  and 
founder  of  the  Presbyterian  denomination,  says :  '  From 
these  words  (John  iii.  23),  it  may  be  inferred  that  bap 
tism  was  administered  by  John  and  Christ  by  plunging 
the  whole  body  under  the  water.  Here  we  perceive  how 
baptism  was  administered  among  the  ancients,  for  they 
immersed  the  whole  body  in  water.' 

"  Here  is  also  Dr.  Whitby,  a  very  learned  and 
eminent  divine  of  the  Church  of  England :  '  Immer 
sion,'  says  he, '  was  religiously  observed  by  all  Christians 
for  THIRTEEN  CENTURIES,  and  was  approved  by  the 
Church  of  England.  And,'  he  continues,  '  since  the 
change  of  it  into  sprinkling  was  made  without  any 
allowance  from  the  AUTHOR  of  the  institution,  or  any 
license  from  any  Council  of  the  Church  [of  England], 
being  that  which  the  Romanist  still  urgeth  to  justify 
his  refusal  of  the  cup  to  the  laity :  it  were  to  be  wished 
that  this  custom  [immersion]  might  be  again  of  general 
use.' 

"  This  musty  looking  old  volume  is  '  The  History  of 
the  Bible,  by  Thomas  Stackhouse,  Yicar  of  Beenham, 
in  England,'  a  celebrated  Episcopal  clergyman.  He 
says :  '  We  nowhere  read  in  Scripture  of  any  one's 
being  baptized  but  by  immersion — and  several  authors 
have  proved,  from  the  acts  of  councils  and  ancient 


172  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

rituals,  that  this  manner  of  immersion  continued  as 
much  as  possible  to  be  used  for  thirteen  hundred  years 
after  Christ.' 

"  The  celebrated  Prelate,  Bishop  Taylor,  of  the  Eng 
lish  Church,  Vice-Chancellor  of  the  University  of 
Dublin,  says  in  his  famous  work  called  '  Ductor  Du- 
bitantium  :'  '  The  custom  of  the  Ancient  Churches  was 
not  sprinkling,  but  immersion,  in  pursuance  of  the 
meaning  of  the  word  baptize  in  the  commandment,  and 
the  example  of  our  blessed  Saviour.' 

"  Here  also  is  what  that  earnest-hearted  man,  Richard 
Baxter  (the  author  of  the  '  Call  to  the  Unconverted' 
and  the  '  Saints'  Rest'),  says :  '  It  is  commonly  con 
fessed  by  us  to  the  Anabaptists,  as  our  commentators 
declare,  that  in  the  Apostles'  times  the  baptized  were 
dipped  over  head  in  water.'  " 

"  Oh,  please,  Mr.  Courtney,  don't  read  us  any  more 
such  testimony.  Any  one  who  would  not  be  convinced 
by  what  you  have  given  us,  would  not  believe  if  you 
should  give  us  ten  times  more.  Do  you  pray  go  on, 
and  show  how,  and  where,  and  by  what  authority 
Christ's  ordinance  was  changed." 

"  No,  no,  Mr.  Courtney — I  want  to  hear  all  the  proof 
you  have.  Never  mind  Theodosia — girls  always  are  im 
patient,"  said  the  mother.  "  I  wish  Mr.  Johnson  was 
here,  so  we  could  know  what  he  thinks  about  these 
statements,  though  as  for  that,  I  suppose  brother  Jones 
knows  nearly  as  much  about  it  as  a  preacher." 

"  Excuse  me,  Miss  Theodosia — I  will  not  detain  you 
much  longer  on  this  point ;  I  have  only  a  few  other  wit 
nesses  whose  testimony  I  will  urge  at  this  time,  though 
there  is  scarcely  a  historian  of  the  early  clays  of  Chris 
tianity,  who  does  not  furnish  us  with  proof.  Not 
many  years  since,  the  King  of  Holland  appointed  two 
very  learned  and  able  men,  one  a  Professor  of  Theology 


SIXTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  173 

in  the  University  of  Groningen,  and  the  other  Chaplain 
to  the  King,  to  examine  into  the  origin  and  history  of 
the  Dutch  Baptists.  They  wrote  out  the  result  of  their 
investigations  and  published  the  work  at  Breda,  in  1819. 
In  this  volume,  prepared  by  these  two  learned  members 
of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church,  Dr.  Ypeig  and  Dr.  J. 
J.  Durmont,  the  authors,  after  tracing  up  the  history 
of  the  Baptists,  make  use  of  the  following  remarkable 
language : 

" '  We  have  now  seen  that  the  Baptists,  who  were 
formerly  called  Anabaptists,  and,  in  later  times,  Meno- 
nites,  were  the  original  Waldenses,  and  who  have  long, 
in  the  history  of  the  Church,  received  the  honor  of  that 
origin.  ON  THIS  ACCOUNT,  THE  BAPTISTS  MAY  BE  CON 
SIDERED  AS  THE  ONLY  CHRISTIAN  COMMUNITY  WHICH 

HAS  STOOD  SINCE  THE  DAYS  OP  THE  APOSTLES,  AND  AS  A 
CHRISTIAN  SOCIETY  WHICH  HAS  PRESERVED  PURE  THE 
DOCTRINE  OF  THE  GOSPEL  THROUGH  ALL  AGES.  The 
perfectly  correct  external  and  internal  economy  of  the 
Baptist  denomination  tends  to  confirm  the  truth,  dis 
puted  by  the  Romish  Church,  that  the  Reformation 
brought  about  in  the  sixteenth  century  was  in  the 
highest  degree  necessary,  and  at  the  same  time  GOES  TO 

REFUTE  THE  ERRONEOUS  NOTION  OF  THE  CATHOLICS  THAT 
THEIR  COMMUNION  IS  THE  MOST  ANCIENT.' 

"  Such  was  the  impression  which  this  truthful  docu 
ment  made  upon  the  Court,  that  the  Government  of 
Holland  offered  to  the  Baptist  Churches  the  support 
of  the  State,  which  was  politely  but  firmly  declined,  '  as 
inconsistent  with  their  principles.' 

"  The  celebrated  Bishop  Bossuet  says :  '  "We  are  able 
to  make  it  appear  by  the  acts  of  councils  and  by  ancient 
rituals,  that  for  more  than  thirteen  hundred  years,  bap 
tism  was  administered  by  immersion  throughout  the 
whole  church  as  far  as  possible." 


174  THEOD08IA   ERNEST. 

"  Now,  if  you  have  any  further  doubt,  I  will  bring  up 
these  very  acts  of  councils,  and  authentic  copies  of  these 
same  ancient  rituals.  They  are  still  on  record,  and  it 
is  not  difficult  to  avail  ourselves  of  their  explicit  testi 
mony." 

"  Oh,  no,  Mr.  Courtney :  these  historians,  and  preach 
ers,  and  bishops,  were  none  of  them  Baptists.  We 
all  know  that,  and  if  the  facts  had  not  compelled  them, 
they  would,  of  course,  never  have  made  assertions  so 
injurious  to  their  own  cause,  and  so  directly  opposed  to 
their  own  practice.  If  they  say  that  baptism  was  done 
by  immersion  for  thirteen  hundred  years,  of  course  it 
must  have  been  so.  If  Mosheim  and  Neander,  Bossuet 
and  Taylor,  Coleman  and  Whitby,  Stackhouse  .  aii'l 
Baxter,  all  sprinklers  themselves,  and  all  opposed  to  the 
Baptists,  make  such  statements,  and  even  Drs.  Miller 
and  Stuart,  our  own  most  eminent  writers  on  the  sub 
ject,  admit  their  truth,  why  need  we  spend  any  more 
time  ?" 

"But  what  then  becomes  of  your  uncle's  opinion,  that 
the  Baptists  originated  about  the  year  1530,  with  the 
Mad  Men  of  Munster?" 

"  Oh,  I  have  given  up  that  opinion  (which  indeed  was 
not  more  than  an  impression)  some  half  an  hour  ago. 
The  testimony  is  irresistible.  Immersion  was  most  un 
questionably  the  practice  of  the  early  churches ;  but  I 
am  now,  like  Theodosia,  exceedingly  anxious  to  know 
how  it  came  to  be  universally  displaced,  and  sprinkling 
universally  adopted  in  its  place." 

"  You  are  mistaken,  Professor  Jones,  if  you  imagine 
that  this  change  is  by  any  means  a  universal  one.  It  was 
made  by  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  and  is  confined  to 
the  Roman  Catholic  Churefe-tnrd"  its  descendants.  The 
Eastern  churches — comprising  a  vast  number  of  profess 
ing  Christians — have  never  adopted  sprinkling,  but 


SIXTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY,  175 

continue  to  practice  immersion  to  the  present  day  ;  and 
as  Professor  Stuart  truly  states,  call  the  Western 
churches  '  sprinkled  Christians,'  by  way  of  derision. 
If  you  have  any  doubt  of  this,  I  will  prove  it  to  you  by 
the  testimony  of  your  own  writers  of  most  unquestion 
able  authority." 

"  Oh,  no,  Mr.  Courtney,  I  do  not  doubt  it.  You 
have  convinced  me  so  often,  that  I  am  now  willing  to 
take  your  word  for  any  thing  you  please  to  assert." 

"I  thank  you,  Professor;  but  still  I  do  not  like  to 
deal  in  assertions.  In  regard  to  this  point,  however, 
the  proof  will  come  in  by  the  way — together  with  that 
on  the  time  and  manner  of  the  change." 

•  I)o,  then,  Mr.  Courtney,  go  on  with  that,"  said  the 
young^lady.  "  You  don't  know  how  provoking  it  is  to 
be  kept  so  long  in  suspense." 

"  Well,  here  is  the  testimony.  I  will  leave  the  story 
to  be  told  by  some  of  the  most  celebrated  members  of 
the  sprinkling  churches.  You  will,  of  course,  not  doubt 
their  truthfulness.  Here  is  the  Edinburgh  Encyclopaedia, 
edited  by  the  learned  and  celebrated  Sir  David  Brews- 
ter.  Let  us  read  what  he  says  on  the  subject.  In  the 
Article  on  Baptism  : 

"  '  The  first  law  for  sprinkling  was  obtained  in  the 
following  manner :  Pope  Stephen  II.,  being  driven  from 
Rome  by  Astolphus,  King  of  Lombards,  in  753,  fled  to 
Pepin,  who  a  short  time  before  had  usurped  the  crown 
of  France.  While  he  remained  there,  the  Monks  of 
Cressy,  in  Brittany,  consulted  him  whether,  in  case  of 
necessity,  baptism  performed  by  pouring  water  on  the 
head  of  the  infant  would  be  lawful.  Stephen  replied 
that  it  would.  But  though  the  truth  of  this  fact  should 
be  allowed,  which,  however,  some  Catholics  deny,  yet 
pouring  or  sprinkling  was  admitted  only  in  cases  of 
necessity.  It  was  not  till  the  year  1311,  that  the  Legis- 


176  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

laturc,  in  a  council  held  at  Ravenna,  declared  immersion 
or  sprinkling  to  be  indifferent.  In  this  country  (Scot 
land),  however,  sprinkling  was  never  practiced  in  ordi 
nary  cases,  till  after  the  Reformation  ;  and  in  England, 
even  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.,  immersion  was  com 
monly  observed.  But  during  the  persecution  of  Mary, 
many  persons,  most  of  whom  were  Scotchmen,  fled  from 
England  to  Geneva,  and  there  greedily  imbibed  the 
opinions  of  that  church.  In  1556,  a  book  was  published 
at  that  place  containing  the  form  of  prayers  and  minis 
tration  of  sacraments,  approved  by  the  famous  and 
godly  learned  man,  John  Calvin,  in  which  the  adminis 
trator  is  enjoined  to  take  water  in  his  hand  and  lay  it 
on  the  child's  forehead.  These  Scottish  exiles,  who  had 
renounced  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  implicitly  acknowl 
edged  the  authority  of  Calvin ;  and  returning  to  their 
own  country  with  John  Knox  at  their  head,  in  1559,  estab 
lished  sprinkling  in  Scotland.  From  Scotland,  this 
practice  made  its  way  into  England  in  the  reign  of 
Elizabeth,  but  was  not  authorized  by  the  established 
church.'" 

"Do  let  me  look  at  that  book  a  moment,"  said  the 
Professor.  "  It  is  very  strange  that  I  should  have  been 
told,  as  I  am  sure  I  have  been  by  some  of  the  learned 
clergy  of  our  church,  that  sprinkling  was  what  was 
practiced  from  the  earliest  ages,  and  that  immersion 
was  attempted  to  be  introduced  in  its  place  by  the  Ana 
baptists  of  Germany  about  the  year  1530 — when  in  fact 
immersion  had  been  always  the  practice,  and  it  was 
sprinkling  that  was  substituted  by  John  Calvin,  the 
founder  of  our  church.  Can  it  be  possible  that  Doctors 
of  Divinity  will  impose  such  falsehoods  on  their  people 
in  order  to  sustain  the  practice  of  the  church  ?  I  cannot 
understand  it." 

"  Perhaps  you  want  more  testimony  before  you  cuu 


SIXTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  177 

believe  it,"  said  Mr.  Courtney  ;  "  and  here  is  ample  con 
firmatory  proof  in  the  plain  and  explicit  declarations  of 
the  famous  Dr.  Wall." 

"  Please  tell  me,"  said  Theodosia,  "  who  was  Dr. 
Wall  ?  I  have  often  heard  of  him,  and  I  know  that  he 
wrote  one  or  more  books  on  baptism,  but  whether  on 
our  side  or  yours,  I  have  never  been  informed." 

"  Dr.  Wall,"  said  Mr.  Courtney,  "  was  a  minister  of 
the  Episcopal,  or  English  Church,  and  after  the  publica 
tion  of  his  work,  the  satisfaction  it  gave  was  so  great, 
that  in  a  general  convocation  of  the  Episcopal  clergy, 
held  February  9th,  1706,  it  was  ordered  '  that  the  thanks 
of  this  house  be  given  to  Mr.  Wall,  Vicar  of  Shoreham, 
in  Kent,  for  the  learned  and  excellent  book  he  has  lately 
written  concerning  infant  baptism.'  " 

"  Then  he  must  have  written  against  the  Baptists,  if 
his  work  was  approved  by  the  clergy  of  the  Episcopal 
Church." 

"  Of  course  he  did,  and  his  book  is  considered  to  this 
day  the  ablest  defence  of  infant  baptism  which  has  ever 
been  written." 

"  Well,  what  does  he  say  about  the  introduction  of 
sprinkling?  Does  he  agree  with  the  Encyclopaedia, 
which  you  have  read  ?  Where  is  the  passage  which 
speaks  of  it  ?  Please  read  it  for  us." 

"  '  France  seems  to  have  been  the  first  country  in  the 
world  where  baptism  by  affusion  was  used,  ordinarily, 
to  persons  in  health,  and  in  the  public  way  of  adminis 
tering  it.  It  being  allowed  to  weak  children  (in  the 
reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth)  to  be  baptized  by  aspersion, 
many  fond  ladies  and  gentlemen  first,  and  then,  by  de 
grees,  the  common  people,  would  obtain  the  favor  of  the 
priest  to  have  their  children  pass  for  weak  children,  too 
tender  to  endure  dipping  in  the  water.  As  for  sprink 
ling,  properly  so  called,  it  was  at  1645  just  then  begin' 


178  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

ning,  and  used  by  very  few.  It  must  have  begun  in  the 
disorderly  times  after  forty-one.  They  (the  Assembly 
of  Divines  in  Westminster)  re-formed  the  font  into  a 
basin.  This  learned  Assembly  could  not  remember  that 
fonts  to  baptize  in  had  been  always  used  by  the  primi 
tive  Christians  long  before  the  beginning  of  Poper}T, 
and  ever  since  churches  were  built ;  but  that  sprinkling, 
for  the  purpose  of  baptizing,  was  really  introduced  (in 
France  first,  and  then  in  other  Popish  countries)  in 
times  of  Popery,  and  that,  accordingly,  all  those 
countries  in  which  the  usurped  power  of  the  Pope  is,  or 
has  formerly  been  owned,  HAVE  LEFT  OFF  DIPPING  OF 
CHILDREN  IN  THE  FONTS  ;  but  that  all  other  countries  in 
the  world  which  had  never  regarded  his  authority, 
do  still  use  it ;  and  that  basins  (to  sprinkle  out  of)  ex 
cept  in  cases  of  necessity,  were  never  used  by  Papists, 
or  any  other  Christians  whosoever,  till  by  themselves.' — 
Hist,  of  Infant  Baptism,  part  2d,  chap.  9. 

"This,"  said  Mr.  Courtney,  "is  Dr.  Wall's  account 
of  the  first  introduction  of  sprinkling :  and  you  see  that 
it  confirms  the  truth  of  what  I  told  you,  that  it  was  in 
troduced  by  Popery,  and  is  confined  to  the  countries 
where  Popery  prevails,  or  has  prevailed.  The  Protest 
ant  sects  borrowed  it  from  the  Catholics.  Now  look 
at  page  403  of  this  other  volume,  by  the  same  author, 
and  read  the  passage  I  have  marked. 

" '  The  way  that  is  ordinarily  used,  we  cannot  deny 
to  have  been  a  novelty,  brought  into  this  Church  (the 
English)  by  those  that  had  learned  it  at  Germany,  or  at 
Geneva.  And  they,  not  contented  to  follow  the  ex 
ample  of  pouring  a  quantity  of  water  (which  had  there 
been  introduced  instead  of  immersion),  but  improved  it 
(if  I  may  so  abuse  that  word)  from  pouring  to  sprink 
ling,  that  it  might  have  as  little  resemblance  to  the  an- 


SIXTH    NIGHTS    STUDY.  179 

dent  way  of  baptizing  as  possible.' — Def.  of  Hist,  of 
Infant  Baj)tism,  p.  403. 

"  If  you  consult  the  Edinburgh  Encyclopaedia,  the 
British  Encyclopasdia,  and  the  Encyclopaedia  Americana, 
article  Baptism,  you  will  find  a  complete  history  of  the 
whole  subject,  the  truthfulness  of  which  you  will  feel  no 
disposition  to  question.  You  will  there  learn  that  in 
England  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines  had  a 
warm  discussion  whether  immersion  or  sprinkling  should 
be  adopted.  But  by  the  earnest  efforts  of  Dr.  Light- 
foot,  who  had  great  interest  in  the  Assembly,  sprinkling 
was  adopted  by  a  majority  of  one.  The  vote  stood — 
twenty-four  for  immersion,  and  twenty-five  for  sprink 
ling.  This  was  1643  years  after  Christ.  The  next  year 
an  Act  of  Parliament  was  passed,  requiring  the  parents 
of  all  children  born  in  the  realm  to  have  them  sprinkled ; 
and  in  1648,  some  four  years  afterward,  an  Ecclesiasti 
cal  Council,  held  at  Cambridge,  Massachusetts,  adopted 
sprinkling  in  the  place  of  immersion ;  and,  in  May  of  the 
same  year,  the  Legislature  of  that  State  passed  a  law 
making  it  a  penal  offence  for  any  one  to  say  that  infant 
sprinkling  was  not  good  and  valid  baptism." 

"That  is  surely  sufficient,"  said  Uncle  Jones,  "to 
satisfy  any  candid  mind,  but  yet  I  can  hardly  believe  it, 
for  very  astonishment." 

"What  is  there  so  surprising,"  replied  Mr.  Courtney, 
"  in  the  fact  that  men  should  change  Christ's  ordinances  ? 
They  did  the  same  thing  before  our  Saviour's  time ;  and 
he  had  more  than  once  occasion  to  reprove  them,  because 
they  taught '  for  ordinances  the  commandments  of  men,' 
and  '  made  the  Word  of  God  of  none  effect  through 
their  traditions.'  " 

"  It  is  not,"  replied  the  Professor,  "  so  much  the  fact 
which  fills  me  with  astonishment,  as  the  care  which  is 
evidently  taken  by  ministers  of  religion  in  our  church 


180  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

to  conceal  the  fact,  and  make  on  our  minds  the  impres 
sion  that  sprinkling,  instead  of  being  merely  allowed  by 
the  Pope,  was  actually  commanded  by  Jesus  Christ,  and 
was  commonly  practiced  by  the  church  till  the  Baptists 
undertook  to  introduce  immersion.  But,  if  I  do  not 
forget,  some  of  our  writers  have  contended  that  there 
was  sufficient  testimony  in  the  writings  of  the  early 
Fathers  to  show  that  sprinkling  was  really  employed  at 
a  very  early  day.  Is  it  not  possible  that  Sir  David 
Brewster,  and  Dr.  Wall,  and  Professor  Stuart,  and  all 
those  other  great  names,  including  Martin  Luther  and 
John  Calvin  themselves,  may  have  been  mistaken,  and 
that  sprinkling  was,  after  all,  the  practice  of  the  early 
church  ?  Did  not  Cyprian,  one  of  the  ancient  Fathers, 
expressly  declare  that  sprinkling  was  practiced  in  his 
day,  and  was  considered  valid  baptism  ?  I  am  sure  I 
have  received  such  an  impression  from  some  source." 

"  You  probably  received  it  from  some  Doctor  of 
Divinity — they  are  accustomed  to  make  such  impressions, 
but  Cyprian  says  no  such  thing.  The  case  to  which  you 
allude  presents  the  very  first  instance  on  record  in  the 
whole  range  of  ecclesiastical  history  in  which  it  was 
thought  possible  to  substitute  any  other  act  for  the  act 
of  immersion.  The  facts  have  been  preserved  by 
Eusebius,  one  of  the  Fathers,  and  the  historian  of  the 
early  churches. 

"  It  appears  that  a  certain  man,  named  Novatian,  was 
taken  sick,  and  was  apparently  nigh  unto  death.  In 
this  condition  he  became,  as  many  others  have  done, 
greatly  alarmed  about  his  condition ;  and,  professing 
faith  in  Christ,  desired  to  be  baptized.  But  he  was  too 
weak  to  be  taken  out  of  bed  and  put  into  the  water. 
The  water  was,  therefore,  poured  around  him  in  his  bed. 
He  afterward  recovered,  and  devoting  himself  to  the 
ministry,  applied  for  priest!}'  orders,  and  the  question 


SIXTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  181 

arose,  whether  one  thus  '  poured  upon'  in  his  bed  could 
be  accounted  a  Christian  ?  Now,  it  is  evident,  if  pour 
ing  or  sprinkling  had  been  a  common  mode  of  adminis 
tering  the  ordinance,  this  question  would  never  have 
been  asked. 

"  Cyprian  was  written  to  upon  this  subject,  and  he 
replied,  giving  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  grace  usually 
conferred  in  baptism,  might  be  received  by  such  pour 
ing.  In  other  words,  that,  though  this  was  not  baptism, 
for  it  is  not  called  baptism,  perichism  ('  perichutheis'), 
from  peri,  around,  and  cheo,  to  pour — yet  he  considered 
it  a  valid  substitute  for  baptism.  This  was  some  time 
in  the  third  century  after  Christ.  That  such  substitu 
tion  was  not  common,  and  had  received  no  general 
sanction  from  the  church,  is  evident  from  the  well 
known  fact  that  the  Monks  of  Cressy,  in  154,  wrote  to 
the  Pope,  Stephen  II.,  inquiring, '  If  it  be  lawful  in  case 
of  necessity,  occasioned  by  sickness,  to  baptize  an 
infant  by  pouring  water  on  its  head  from  a  cup,  or  the 
hands  ?'  To  which  the  Pope  replied  :  '  Such  a  baptism, 
performed  in  such  a  case  of  necessity,  shall  be 
accounted  valid.'  '  This,'  says  Basnage,  '  is  accounted 
the  first  law  against  immersion.'  The  Pontiff,  however, 
did  not  dispense  with  immersion  except  in  case  of  ex 
treme  necessity.  This  law,  therefore,  did  not  change 
the  mode  of  dipping  in  the  public  baptisms ;  and  it  was 
not  till  five  hundred  and  fifty-seven  years,  that  the  legis 
lature,  in  a  council  at  Ravenna,  in  1311,  declared  immer 
sion  and  pouring  indifferent." 

"  Pardon  me,  Mr.  Courtney,  if  I  seem  querulous  ;  but 
did  not  ORIGEN,  another  of  the  Fathers,  speak  of  bap 
tism  as  a  pouring,  when  relating  the  history  of  the  flood 
ing  of  the  wood,  and  the  sacrifice  by  the  prophet  Elisha 
in  his  contest  with  the  prophets  of  Baal  ?  Does  he  not 
call  this  wetting  a  baptism?" 
16 


182  TUEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

"  He  does  indeed,  Professor.  He  calls  it  a  baptism  in 
the  same  way  that  the  writer  of  the  book  of  Daniel  calls 
the  wetting  of  Nebuchadnezzar  a  baptism.  He  was  bap 
tized  in  the  dews  of  heaven.  The  word  in  the  Hebrew 
is  tabal,  which  no  one  ever  doubted  signified  to  dip  or 
to  immerse.  He  was  dipped  in  the  dews  of  heaven — a 
most  beautiful,  though  hyperbolical,  figure  of  speech, 
expressing  the  idea  that  he  was  as  wet  as  though  he  had 
been  dipped.  The  allusion  in  both  cases  is  to  the  wetting, 
not  to  the  act  by  which  the  wetting  was  occasioned." 

"  I  am  glad,"  said  Uncle  Jones,  "  that  you  mentioned 
that  passage  in  Daniel,  for  I  confess  it  has  been  a  stum 
bling-stone  to  me  ;  yet  you  set  aside  all  my  other  Scrip 
tural  difficulties  so  easily,  that  I  was  almost  ashamed  to 
mention  it.  I  was  going  to  tell  you  that  baptize  must 
signify  something  besides  immersion,  because  it  was 
impossible  that  the  deposed  monarch  could  be  actually 
immersed  in  dew." 

"  If  you  had  told  me  so,  I  would  have  proved  to  you," 
said  Mr.  Courtney,  "  that  dip  does  not  mean  to  dip,  or 
to  submerge,  because  Milton,  a  standard  English  writer, 
represents  one  as  saying  that  he  is  dipped  all  over  in 
the  perspiration  of  his  own  body  : 

'A  cold  shuddering  dew  dips  me  all  over. ' 

"  If  Daniel  had  been  translated  as  he  should  have  been. 
'  His  body  was  dipped  in  the  dews  of  heaven,'  everybody 
would  have  recognized  the  force  and  beauty  of  the 
figure,  as  we  do  in  Milton.  It  would  have  been  like  that 
expression  which  represents  the  good  land  of  Canaan 
as  'flowing'  with  milk  and  honey ;  or,  like  that  which 
represents  God  as  pouring  out  blessings  till  there 
should  not  be  room  to  receive  them.  Such  hyperbolical 
figures  are  extremely  beautiful,  and  are  common  in  all 
languages. 


SIXTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  183 

"  Nebuchadnezzar  is  said  to  be  dipped  in  dew,  and 
Origen  says  the  wood  and  the  sacrifice  were  immersed 
in  water,  to  express  the  completeness  of  the  soaking  or 
drenching  which  they  received." 

"  Yes,"  said  Theodesia,  "  Edwin  made  use  of  the  word 
ducking  last  evening  in  the  same  way.  You  recollect, 
Mr.  Courtney,  the  lad  who  pulled  the  bucket  of  water 
over  on  his  head  in  school  yesterday,  so  much  to  the 
amusement  of  all  the  boys.  Well,  Edwin,  in  relating 
the  circumstances,  said  that  the  little  fellow  got  a  good 
'ducking.'  By  which  he  meant,  of  .course,  that  he'was 
as  wet  as  though  he  had  dived  in  the  water  like  a  duck. 
It  would  have  been  equally  proper  to  have  said  that  he 
got  a  good  '  dipping,'  and  yet  neither  ducking  or  dip 
ping  means  to  pour  upon — they  are  diving  and  plunging 
still." 

"Well,  well,  Theodosia,"  said  the  mother,  "that  is 
what  I  should  call  stepping  from  the  sublime  to  the 
ridiculous.  Please  go  on,  Mr.  Courtney,  and  don't  mind 
her  nonsense." 

"  Indeed,  Mrs.  Ernest,  I  feel  obliged  to  your  daughter 
for  so  appropriate  an  illustration  of  the  great  principle 
of  interpretation  which  must  guide  us  in  deciding  upon 
the  meaning  of  such  passages.  She  has  shown  us  that 
not  only  in  Scriptural  usage,  and  in  the  poets,  but  even 
in  common  talk  among  the  very  children,  one  mode  of 
wetting  is  sometimes  figuratively  employed  to  designate 
another  mode  ;  and  that  a  person  or  thing  that  is  as 
thoroughly  wet  as  though  it  had  been  dipped,  may  be 
appropriately  and  beautifully  said  to  be  dipped. 

"  But  now  to  return  to  the  subject  of  our  conversa 
tion.  I  have  proved  to  you,  by  the  united  testimony  of 
Mosheim,  Neander,  and  Moses  Stuart — of  Luther,  and 
Calvin,  and  Whitby,  and  Taylor,  and  Baxter — by  Drs. 
Ypeig  and  Durmont,  Coleman  and  Bossuet,  to  whose 


184  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

testimony  I  might  have  added  that  of  many  others  of 
the  highest  authority,  both  among  the  ancients  and  the 
moderns,  that  immersion  was  the  practice  of  the  early 
churches,  and  continued  to  be  the  only  practice,  except 
in  cases  of  supposed  necessity,  for  MORE  THAN  THREE 
HUNDRED  YEARS.  I  have  showed  you  further,  how 
'  pouring'  was  first  practiced  irregularly,  and  without 
authority  from  the  Bible,  or  the  Pope,  in  some  rare 
cases  of  extreme  sickness,  till  the  Monks  of  Cressy 
obtained  the  sanction  of  the  Pope  (not  of  Christ)  for 
its  use  in  these  extreme  cases  of  sickness,  more  than 
seven  hundred  years  after  Christ,  and  how  immersion 
and  pouring  were  at  length  declared  to  be  indifferent 
by  the  Pope  and  his  Council  (not  by  the  Scriptures)  at 
Ravenna,  in  1311. 

"  I  have  showed  you  also  how  John  Calvin  and  the 
"Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines  were  the  means  of 
bringing  sprinkling  into  the  English  and  Presbyterian 
Churches  of  Scotland  and  England — whence  it  came 
over  to  America  with  the  Colonists. 

"  I  have  showed  you  also  that  as  this  change  was 
made  by  the  Pope  and  the  Papal  Church,  so  it  is  con 
fined  to  those  countries  which  are,  or  have  been,  under 
Roman  Catholic  rule,  and  that  the  Eastern  Churches, 
which  never  acknowledged  the  dominion  of  the  Pope, 
have  continued  to  practice  immersion  even  to  the  pres 
ent  day.  I  have  showed  you  all  this,  not  by  the  testi 
mony  of  Baptist  witnesses,  but  by  that  of  members  of 
sprinkling  churches — by  Lutherans,  Episcopalians,  and 
Presbyterians ;  and  these  not  men  of  doubtful  charac 
ter,  and  unknown  to  fame,  but  of  world-wide  celebrity, 
both  in  regard  to  their  religious  and  their  intellectual 
character.  He  who,  after  this,  will  not  believe  that  im 
mersion  was  the  baptism  of  the  early  churches,  would 


SIXTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  185 

not  believe  though  Paul  himself  should  return  from  the 
dead  to  testify." 

"  But,  Mr.  Courtney,"  said  Mrs.  Ernest,  "  what  if  it 
was  ?  Must  we  be  immersed,  because  the  old  Fathers 
were  immersed  ?  I  thought  you  Baptists  were  opposed 
to  old  traditions." 

"We  are  opposed,  Mrs.  Ernest,"  said  he,  very  sol 
emnly.  "  We  are  opposed  to  the  substitution  of  the 
traditions  of  men  for  the  teachings  of  the  Word  of  God. 
We  have  ascertained  from  the  Word  itself  that  it  was 
immersion  which  was  commanded  by  Jesus  Christ.  It 
was  thus  the  early  Christians  understood  it.  It  was 
this  which,  for  many  hundred  years,  they  practiced  ;  but 
at  length  the  man-made  ordinance  of  sprinkling  and 
pouring  was  introduced  by  the  authority  of  the  Pope 
and  his  councils.  You  have  adopted  this — your  church 
almost  universally  practices  it — you  have  no  other  au 
thority  for  it,  as  I  have  proved  by  your  own  writers, 
but  that  of  the  Pope.  Is  it  not  true,  therefore,  that 
you  are  in  your  church  '  teaching  for  doctrines  the  com 
mandments  of  men?' 

"  I  did  not  refer  to  the  usage  of  the  early  churches  as 
the  authority  for  immersion.  If  I  could  not  find  it  in 
the  Bible,  I  would  not  receive  it,  though  it  had  been 
practiced  from  the  time  of  Noah.  Tradition  is  no 
authorit  in  matters  of  religion.  I  may  use  it  to  con 
firm  the  teaching  of  the  actual  commandment,  but 
where  there  is  no  express  precept  or  example  recorded 
in  God's  Word,  I  owe  no  obedience  in  matters  of 
religion." 

"  But  wlty,  then,  did  you  go  into  this  long  investiga 
tion  of  the  practice  of  the  church  ?" 

"  I  did  it,  madam,  for  the  satisfaction  of  Professor 
Jones  and  your  daughter,  who  seemed  to  have  a  sort  of 
silent  conviction  that  the  simple  fact  that  sprinkling 


186  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

was  so  generally  practiced,  was  in  some  way  or  other 
sufficient  evidence  that  it  must  have  been  commanded 
in  the  Scriptures.  I,  therefore,  traced  immersion  back 
to  Jesus  Christ,  and  showed  where  he  commanded  it. 
I  have  now  traced  pouring  back  to  Pope  Stephen  II., 
and  showed  where  he  allowed  it  in  cases  of  necessity, 
and  to  the  Popish  council  at  Ravenna,  and  showed 
where  they  allowed  it  in  other  cases ;  and  I  have  traced 
sprinkling,  properly  so-called,  back  to  John  Calvin,  and 
showed  where  he  commanded  it  in  his  Book  of  Prayers 
and  Sacraments,  published  at  Geneva.  I  have,  there 
fore,  founded  immersion  on  the  rock  of  God's  Word, 
and  at  the  same  time  convinced  you  all,  I  trust,  that 
pouring  and  sprinkling  rest  only  on  the  sand  of  human 
invention — not  having  even  a  credible  tradition  to  rest 
upon." 

Uncle  Jones  listened  with  some  uneasiness  to  this 
long  speech.  He  felt  its  force,  and  recognized  its 
truthfulness,  but  he  was  doubtful  of  the  effect  it  might 
have  upon  his  sister.  In  fact,  he  was  afraid  of  an 
explosion. 

Affection  for  her  daughter  had,  however,  been  work 
ing  wonders  in  the  mother's  mind  within  the  last  two 
days.  She  found  that  Theodosia  would  examine,  and 
she  desired  that  she  would  do  it  quickly.  She  found 
she  was  likely  to  be  convinced,  and  she  began  to  excuse 
her  by  considering  the  weight  and  invincibility  of  the 
arguments.  Now,  she  saw  that  she  was  convinced,  and 
every  additional  reason  for  such  conviction  was  a 
comfort  to  her  maternal  pride,  as  it  was  new  proof  that 
her  daughter  was  not  such  a  simpleton  as  to  believe 
without  the  most  convincing  evidence. 

She  had  not  the  most  distant  idea  of  being  convinced 
herself.  She  did  not  hear  or  weigh  the  testimony  for 
herself — she  heard  and  thought  only  for  Theodosia — and 


SIXTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  18t 

since  her  daughter  would  become  a  Baptist,  she  was 
gratified  that  it  was  nothing  less  than  the  most  unan- 
siverable  arguments  that  compelled  her  to  do  so. 

So  far,  therefore,  from  looking  angry,  she  seemed 
rather  pleased  with  this  conclusion  of  the  schoolmas 
ter's  arguments ;  and  she  herself  suggested  that  he 
should  enter  upon  the  other  branch  of  it,  by  reminding 
him  that  he  had  promised  to  show  that  the  American 
Baptists  did  not  originate  with  Roger  Williams  any 
more  than  the  European  Baptists  did  with  the  Mad 
Men  of  Munster. 

"  That  is  one  of  the  easiest  things  in  the  world  to 
do,"  replied  Mr.  Courtney.  "  Even  granting  that  Roger 
Williams  established  the  first  Baptist  Church  which  was 
ever  known  in  this  country,  yet  it  would  not  follow 
that  all  the  Baptists,  or  any  of  the  Baptist  Churches 
received  their  baptism  from  him ;  for  there  have  been, 
every  year  since  his  day,  more  or  less  regularly 
immersed  Baptists,  and  regularly  ordained  Baptist 
ministers  coming  to  this  country ;  and  even  though 
he  had  founded  the  church  at  Providence,  and  that 
in  an  irregular  manner,  before  any  other  Baptist 
Church  was  founded — that  would  not  invalidate  the 
regularity  of  any  other  of  the  thousands  and  thousands 
of  Baptist  Churches,  unless  it  could  be  made  to  appear 
that  they  were  all  colonies  from  that.  I  need  not,  there 
fore,  spend  any  time  upon  this  point.  Of  all  the  thousands 
of  Baptist  Churches  in  America,  there  are  none  whose 
pastors  and  members  have  had  any  manner  of  depend 
ence  on  the  church  founded  by  Roger  Williams.  They 
have  many  of  them  received  baptism  from  the  Dutch  Bap 
tists,  of  whom  Drs.  Ypeig  and  Durmont  testify  that 
they  belong  to  a  body  of  Christians  who  can  trace  their 
origin  down  to  the  very  times  of  the  Apostles.  Many 


188  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

of  thorn  received  it  from  the  Welsh  Baptists,  who  can 
trace  their  descent  back  to  the  sixth  or  seventh  century. 
Many  of  them  received  it  from  the  English  Baptists, 
who  have  been  the  victims  of  proscription  and  persecu 
tion  from  a  very  early  day.  But  none  of  them  received 
baptism  from  Roger  Williams,  or  the  church  said  to 
have  been  established  by  him  at  Providence.  The 
truth  is,  the  society  established  by  Roger  Williams, 
Holliman,  and  others,  soon  died  out.  It  never  planted 
any  other  church.  It  cannot  be  proved  that  any  Baptist 
who  received  baptism  in  that  body  and  by  their 
authority,  was  ever  concerned  in  baptizing  any  founder 
of  other  churches." 

"  I  have  often  heard  of  Roger  Williams,"  said  Theo- 
dosia,  "  as  the  founder  of  the  Baptists  in  this  country. 
Please  tell  me  what  was  his  relation  to  them." 

"  Roger  Williams  adopted  at  one  time  Baptist  senti 
ments,  at  least,  in  some  particulars,"  replied  Mr.  Court 
ney.  "  He  desired  to  be  immersed.  There  was  no 
Baptist  minister  at  hand.  He  consequently  immersed 
one  of  his  followers,  who,  in  turn,  immersed  him,  and 
then  he  considered  himself  competent  to  immerse 
others.  The  little  company,  thus  irregularly  baptized, 
called  itself  a  Baptist  church;  but,  in  about  four 
months,  Roger  Williams  himself  changed  his  opinions 
and  withdrew  from  the  society.  The  so-called  church 
soon  died  out,  and  the  present  Baptist  Church  of  Provi 
dence  was  founded  on  an  independent  basis,  separate 
and  distinct  from  that.  It  seems  probable,  however, 
from  recent  historical  researches,  that  the  oldest  Bap 
tist  Church  in  the  United  States,  is  that  at  Newport,  in 
Rhode  Island,  founded  by  John  Clark,,  against  the 
regularity  of  whose  baptism  there  has,  so  far  as  I  know, 
been  nothing  alleged.  Though,  as  to  that,  even  if  this, 


SIXTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  189 

and  all  the  other  churches  of  Rhode  Island,  had  been, 
and  were  still,  irregular  up  to  the  present  time,  it 
would  not  affect  the  standing  of  the  great  body  of  the 
churches  in  the  United  States,  since  very  few  of  them 
derived  their  baptism  directly  or  indirectly  from  Rhode 
Island — and  not  a  single  one  of  them  from  Roger 
Williams." 


THE  SEVENTH  SIGHTS  STUDY. 

IN  WHICH  IT  IS  CLEARLY  PROVED 

BY    THE    SCRIPTURES   THEMSELVES 

AND    BY    THE 

TESTIMONY    OF    THE    MOST    LEARNED 

AND 

EMINENT  PEDOBAPTIST  MINISTEKS, 

THAT 

INFANT  BAPTISM 

WAS    NOT 

COMMANDED  BY  CHRIST  OR  THE  APOSTLES: 

INFANT   BAPTISM  WAS  NOT  PRACTICED 
OB 

SANCTIONED   BY   CHRIST    OR   HIS   APOSTLES. 


SEVENTH  WIGHT'S  STUDY. 


attentive  reader  may  have  observed  that 
Mr.  Percy  has  not  favored  us  with  his  presence 
for  the  last  three  nights.  Though  he  seemed 
so  greatly  interested  in  the  subject,  yet  with  the 
third  night's  study  he  apparently  abandoned  it. 
Since  that  time  he  had  not  visited  Mrs.  Ernest's 
cottage,  or  held  any  communion  with  its  inmates.  He 
did  not  know  what  progress  Theodosia  had  made  in  her 
investigations,  nor  what  assistance  she  had  received 
from  Uncle  Jones  or  others.  The  remark  made  by 
Mr.  Courtney,  as  they  were  about  to  separate  on  that 
occasion,  "  that  he  would  find  it  much  easier  to  satisfy 
his  mind  that  sprinkling  and  pouring  were  not  baptism, 
than  he  would  to  abandon  his  church  connections  and 
be  baptized  according  to  the  commandment  of  Jesus 
Christ,"  had  opened  his  eyes.  He  had,  till  that  mo 
ment,  looked  upon  the  subject  merely  as  one  of  curious 
speculation.  It  was  till  then  a  mere  question  of  fact, 
to  be  decided  by  testimony.  As  such,  its  investigation 
greatly  interested  him.  It  was  congenial  to  his  logical 
and  discriminating  cast  of  mind,  and  he  had  been  study 
ing  it  as  he  would  a  case  of  law.  But  he  now  saw  that 
it  was  a  practical  matter.  If  he  decided  that  he  had 
not  been  baptized,  consistency  would  require  that  he 
should  at  once  apply  for  baptism.  This  would  break 
off  his  connection  with  a  large,  and  wealthy,  and  influ 
ential  body,  and  tie  him  down  to  a  little  company  of 
obscure  and  ignorant  laborers  and  mechanics  —  for  of 
such  was  the  newly-organized  Baptist  Church  of  which 
17  (193) 


194  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

we  have  been  speaking  chiefly  composed.  This  was 
something  he  could  not  think  of.  His  natural  pride 
had  never  been  humbled  l>y  the  grace  of  God,  and  he 
was  not  at  all  prepared  to  resign  a  position  at  once 
honorable  and  profitable,  for  one  of  comparative  insig 
nificance  and  contempt.  He  thought  of  these  things  as 
he  was  going  home  that  night,  and  at  once  resolved  that 
he  would  have  no  more  to  do  with  the  subject. 

In  this  resolution  he  had  been  confirmed,  by  a  visit 
next  morning  from  Colonel  White,  one  of  the  members 
of  the  Session,  who  was  a  wealthy  speculator  in  lands, 
and  one  of  his  best  patrons.  After  some  conversation 
about  matters  of  business,  Colonel  White  carelessly 
remarked :  "  They  have  it  rumored,  Squire  Percy,  that 
you  are  on  the  eve  of  leaving  our  church  and  becoming 
a  Baptist." 

"  Let  me  assure  3rou,  colonel,  that  there  is  not  the 
slightest  foundation  for  such  a  report.  I  have,  indeed, 
spent  a  few  hours  in  the  investigation  of  the  mode  of 
baptism,  but  it  was  for  the  mere  purpose  of  fortifying 
my  mind  Avith  the  best  arguments  in  favor  of  our  po 
sition  on  that  subject.  I  found,  indeed,  that  the  immer- 
sionists  have  much  firmer  ground  to  stand  upon  than  I 
imagined ;  but  I  have  never  for  a  moment  entertained 
the  idea  of  leaving  the  Presbyterian  Church." 

"  I  am  glad  to  hear  it,  Mr.  Percy,  for  I  prefer,  and  so 
do  several  of  our  best  firms,  to  employ  you  to  attend  to 
our  business,  and  we  had  all  about  concluded  that  we 
could  never  trust  our  interests  in  the  hands  of  one  so 
fickle  minded  as  such  a  change  would  prove  a  man  to 
be ;  and,  besides  this,  since  the  death  of  Deacon  Smith, 
there  has  been  a  vacancy  in  the  Church  Session,  which 
we  have  been  desirous  to  fill  with  some  talented  and 
efficient  young  man,  since  the  rest  of  us  arc  now  begin 
ning  to  be  somewhat  advanced  in  years.  We  were  talk- 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  195 

ing  of  you,  and  the  only  objection  seemed  to  be,  that 
you  were  yet  unmarried.  I  took  the  liberty  to  say  that 
I  thought  that  difficulty  would  be  removed  in  the  course 
of  another  month,  as  I  understood  the  wedding-day  was 
fixed.  It  is  no  secret,  you  know.  But  then,  rumor  says 
also,  that  Miss  Theodosia  is  going  over  to  the  Baptists ; 
and  that  her  mother,  with  all  her  authority,  has  not  been 
able  to  dissuade  her  from  the  investigation  of  the  sub 
ject,  though  she  sees  very  plainly  where  it  will  lead 
her." 

"  It  is  very  true,"  said  the  young  man,  "that  she  has 
been  engaged  in  the  study  of  this  subject,  but  I  do  not 
know  to  what  conclusion  she  may  come.  For  my  own 
part,  I  have  concluded  to  have  nothing  more  to  do 
with  it," 

"  It  is  a  delicate  matter,  Mr.  Percy,  and  perhaps  I 
ought  not  to  mention  it,  and  nothing  but  my  regard  for 
your  future  happiness,  and  the  honor  of  our  church, 
could  induce  me  to  do  it ;  but  would  it  not  be  wise  in 
you  to  use  your  influence  (which  I  know  must  be  very 
great)  to  induce  her  to  pause  before  she  takes  a  step 
which  will  cause  your  house,  always  after  your  mar 
riage,  to  be  divided  against  itself?  I  know  I  have  no 
right  to  advise,  but  I  take  the  liberty  of  a  friend  to  you, 
and  a  friend  to  your  father  before  you,  to  merely  sug 
gest  such  a  thought.  Perhaps,  on  reflection,  you  may 
think  it  advisable,  either  to  see  her  immediately,  or 
write  a  little  line,  stating  your  own  determination,  and 
whatever  else  you  may  think  most  likely  to  operate 
upon  her  mind,  so  as  to  prevent  such  a  terrible  event  as 
it  would  be  to  you  and  all  of  us,  should  she  so  far  dis 
grace  her  name  and  dishonor  her  profession  as  to  leave 
the  communion  in  which  she  was  born,  and  by  which 
she  has  been  nourished  and  taught — in  which  her  grand 
parents  lived  and  died — and  of  which  she  is  herself  the 


196  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

ornament  and  pride,  and  throw  herself  away,  with  all 
her  loveliness  and  intelligence,  by  uniting  her  fate  to 
that  ignorant  and  obscure  sect,  with  a  mechanic  for  a 
preacher,  who  have  started  up  here  like  a  mushroom  in 
a  single  night,  and  will  probably  pass  away  again  in  a 
day." 

Mr.  Percy  was  about  to  reply,  when  the  colonel  an 
ticipated  him  by  rising  and  grasping  the  young  man's 
hand  very  warmly  in  both  of  his.  "  Pardon  me,"  he 
said,  "  I  ought  not  to  have  spoken  thus.  Forget  that  I 
have  said  it.  But  don't  forget  my  case  in  the  Supreme 
Court.  I  have  entrusted  it  entirely  to  you.  I  want 
you  to  have  all  the  honor  which  will  accrue  from  a  de 
cision  in  your  favor.  Good  morning.  You  will  need 
all  your  time  to  make  preparation  for  next  week's  Cir 
cuit  Court — you  start  on  Saturday,  I  believe?" 

"Yes,  sir." 

"  Well,  good  luck  to  you,"  and  the  colonel  was  gone. 

Mr.  Percy  walked  his  office  with  a  restless,  undecided 
air,  for  some  time,  and  then  set  himself  resolutely  to 
work  in  the  preparation  of  some  cases  for  the  approach 
ing  court.  But  he  could  not  banish  the  subject  from 
his  mind.  He  sometimes  thought  he  would  go  at  once, 
and  have  another  conversation  with  his  betrothed  upon 
the  subject ;  but  when  he  remembered  her  earnest  and 
conscientious  truthfulness  of  soul,  he  feared  to  lower 
himself  in  her  estimation  by  presenting  to  her  any  but 
the  real  reasons  for  his  abandonment  of  the  investiga 
tion,  and  these  he  hardly  dared  to  own  even  to  himself. 
This  was  on  Wednesday  morning.  He  learned  on 
Thursda}^  that  Uncle  Jones  had  been  conversing  with 
Theodosia  on  the  subject ;  and,  on  Friday,  that  both  he 
and  Mr.  Courtney  had  been  at  the  cottage ;  and  Mrs. 
Tattle  had  told  young  Dr.  Woodruff,  who  was  his  inti- 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  197 

mate  friend  and  confidant,  that,  on  the  coming  Sabbath, 
Miss  Ernest  was  to  be  baptized. 

Early  on  Saturday  morning,  he  was  obliged  to  start 
to  a  distant  county-site  to  attend  a  session  of  the  Cir 
cuit  Court.  Before  his  return  (if  this  story  were  true) 
the  die  would  be  cast.  If  he  would  prevent  it  at  all, 
he  must  do  it  now.  He  determined  to  write  what  he 
felt  he  could  not  speak.  The  letter  read  thus : 

"  DEAREST  : — I  must  leave  town  to-morrow,  and  shall 
be  gone  a  week.  I  have  been  so  pressed  by  business, 
that  I  have  not  been  able  to  call  in  again,  as  I  intended 
when  I  saw  you  last.  I  cannot  come  to-night,  but  1 
cannot  leave  without  expressing  to  you  once  more  my 
earnest  love.  You  know,  dearest  Theodosia,  that  the 
happiness  of  my  life  is  bound  up  in  yours.  I  have  no 
wish  or  hope  in  the  future  but  those  of  which  you  form 
a  part ;  and,  if  what  I  am  about  to  say  should  be  un 
pleasant  to  you,  I  beg  you  will  remember  that  it  is 
dictated  by  the  tenderest  and  most  ardent  affection.  It 
is  because  I  value  your  happiness  even  more  than  my 
own,  that  I  venture  to  say  what  I  am  about  to  utter. 
I  have  learned  from  rumor  that  you  have  already  deter 
mined  to  abandon  our  church,  and  unite  with  that  con 
temptible  sect  of  Baptists.  I  do  not  know  if  this  be 
true  or  not.  I  hope  and  pray  the  rumor  may  prove 
false.  I  will  not  say  these  Baptists  are  not  right  about . 
the  mode  of  baptism.  It  may  be  they  are.  But 
whether  one  mode  or  another  be  correct,  baptism  is  not 
essential  to  salvation.  It  is  a  mere  outward  form,  and 
I  cannot,  for  the  sake  of  a  mere  external  and  non- 
essential  ceremony,  abjure  the  church  of  my  fathers. 
I  fondly  hope  that  she,  whom  I  love  more  than  all  else 
in  life,  will  agree  with  me  in  this.  I  cannot  bear  the 
thought  that  one  so  beautiful,  so  lovely,  so  accom- 


198  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

plished,  so  fitted  to  shine  and  lead  in  the  highest  circle 
of  our  society — one,  too,  who  has  the  unbounded  con 
fidence  and  affection  of  her  brothers  and  sisters  in  the 
church — should  bring  such  dishonor  upon  her  father's 
name,  such  sorrow  to  her  mother's  heart,  and  such 
regret  to  his,  who  rejoices  in  the  hope  that  he  will  be 
the  companion  of  her  life,  and  the  husband  of  her  love, 
as  to  prove  recreant  to  her  Christian  faith — forsake 
the  church  of  the  mother  who  offered  her  to  God  in 
infancy — of  the  teachers  who  instructed  her  childhood 
— of  the  pastor  who  prayed  with  her  in  the  time  of  her 
conviction,  and  rejoiced  over  her  at  the  time  of  her 
conversion  ;  and  may  I  not  add  of  him  who,  trusting  in 
the  solemn  promise  of  our  betrothal,  expects  to  spend 
his  life  in  promoting  her  happiness  ?  How  can  you,  my 
dearest  love — how  can  you  disregard  such  considera 
tions  as  these  ?  I  know  that  you  are  conscientious  in 
every  step  you  take,  and  I  beg  you  to  reflect  whether 
these  things  should  not  have  some  influence  with  you. 
I  know  that  you  mean  to  do  right,  and  I  entreat  that 
you  will  consider  if  such  a  course  will  not  be  wrong. 
I  know  I  have  no  right  to  dictate,  but,  oh !  I  do  beseech 
you,  if  you  have  any  love  for  me,  that  you  will  not  so 
mortify  and  distress,  not  me  alone,  but  all  who  love 
you,  as  to  unite  your  fate  with  those  boorish,  unedu 
cated,  and  bigoted  people,  called  Baptists. 

"  Your  distressed,  but  still  most  affectionate, 

"  G.  W.  PERCY." 

This  note  he  hardly  trusted  himself  to  read,  so  he 
sealed  it  up,  and  despatched  a  messenger  to  carry  it  to 
Mrs.  Ernest's.  Its  immediate  effect  on  Theodosia  we 
have  already  seen.  When  she  had  reached  her  own 
room,  she  threw  her  head  upon  her  mother's  bosom, 
and,  sighing  as  if  a  heart-string  broke  with  every 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  199 

deep-fetched  sob  that  came,  gave  free  expression  to  her 
uncontrollable  distress. 

It  was  long  before  the  mother  became  sufficiently 
composed  to  read  the  letter,  and  learn  what  it  was  that 
had  occasioned  such  a  terrible  heart-sorrow  to  her  loving 
and  sensitive  child.  Terrible  she  knew  it  must  be,  for 
never  in  her  life  had  she  seen  Theodosia  exhibit  such 
unutterable  distress.  The  young  lady  herself  did  not 
know  precisely  what  the  letter  contained.  She  had 
loved  Mr.  Percy  with  all  the  fervor  of  a  first  and  only 
love.  The  day  was  fixed  only  a  few  weeks  in  the  future 
for  their  wedding.  The  preparations  for  it  were  even 
then  begun.  To  be  what  Mr.  Percy  would  approve, 
was  to  her  the  highest  point  of  earthly  ambition.  She 
prized  her  peerless  beauty,  not  for  its  own  sake,  but 
because  Mr.  Percy  praised  it.  She  valued  her  accom 
plishments,  chiefly  because  Mr.  Percy  thought  them 
desirable.  With  all  her  independence  of  thought  and 
originality  of  mind,  she  had  learned  to  think  that  she 
was  wrong,  if  Mr.  Percy  did  not  think  her  right. 

In  this  investigation  he  had  gone  with  her  step  by 
step,  so  long  as  he  had  taken  any  part  in  it.  She  had, 
till  now,  not  the  very  slightest  suspicion  that  he  would 
not  act  out  his  convictions,  as  well  as  herself — much  less 
did  she  imagine  that  he  would  so  fearfully  disapprove 
of  her  obedience  to  what  she  now  was  fully  satisfied 
was  the  plain  and  unmistakable  command  of  her  Re 
deemer. 

The  first  influence  of  this  communication  was  like  that 
of  a  heavy  blow  upon  the  head.  It  staggered,  and  then 
stunned  the  mind.  She  only  felt  that  some  great  and 
terrible  calamity  had  fallen  on  her  heart  and  crushed  it. 
She  could  not  recall  the  language  of  the  letter,  but  only 
a  general  impression  of  its  contents.  But  there  was, 
here  and  there,  a  word  which  was  burnt  into  her  very 


200  TUEODOS1A    L11N.KST. 

brain.  With  all  its  protestations  of  affection,  she  felt 
(for  love  is  jealous  in  such  things)  that  if  she  became  a 
Baptist,  she  forfeited  his  love. 

To  her  mother  she  could  speak  words  no  other's  ear 
might  hear — and  when  her  sobs  had  somewhat  ceased, 
and  she  had  been  persuaded  to  lie  down,  and  try  to  be 
composed,  she  drew  her  mother's  face  to  hers,  and  while 
their  tears  mingled  together  upon  her  cheek,  she  whis 
pered,  "  I  did  not  think  he  could  have  cast  me  off  for 
seeking  to  know  and  do  my  duty." 

"  My  precious  child,  he  has  not  cast  you  off — he  says 
again  and  again,  that  he  loves  you  dearly,  and  hopes  to 
spend  his  life  in  rendering  you  happy." 

"  But,  mother,  does  he  not  say  he  cannot  bear  to  think 
of  my  becoming  a  Baptist  ?  Does  he  not  call  them,  whom 
now  I  do  believe  are  the  true  church  of  Jesus  Christ — does 
he  not  call  them  that  contemptible  sect  ?  Does  he  not 
say  that  because  he  has  no  right  to  dictate,  he  entreats  me 
not  to  mortify  him,  not  to  distress  him,  by  becoming  one 
of  that  little  company  of  boorish,  uneducated,  and 
bigoted  people  ?  No,  no,  mother,  I  see  it  all.  If  I 
become  a  Baptist,  I  must  resign  his  love — I  must  give 
up  all  the  most  cherished  hopes  of  my  life.  After  such 
an  expression  of  his  dislike  to  these  poor  and  humble 
disciples  of  Jesus,  I  would  not  dare,  if  I  were  one  of 
them,  to  become  his  wife.  I  must  choose  between  him 
and  my  Saviour — I  see  it  all — but  I  can't  choose  now. 
Oh  !  my  mother,  pray  for  me — pray  for  me !  You  will 
not  cast  me  off,  my  mother :  you  will  love  me  still.  Will 
you  not,  my  mother  ?  You  can  love,  even  though  I  do 
mortify  and  distress  you,  can't  you  mother?" 

"  Yes,  3res,  darling — don't  look  at  me  so  wildly.  I 
will  love  you  always — I  will  love  you  dearly.  And  so 
will  Mr.  Percy,  even  though  you  do  mortify  and  dis 
tress  him.  He  can't  help  loving  you,  my  sweet  child. 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  201 

No  one,  who  knows  you,  can  do  any  thing  but  love 
you." 

"  No,  mother,  he  can't  love  as  I  must-  be  loved,  were  I 
the  wife  of  his  bosom.  But  I  dare  not  think  of  that 
now.  I  must  pray — I  must  ask  wisdom — I  must  get 
strength  from  heaven.  Leave  me  now,  mother,  but  don't 
forget  to  pray  for  me." 

The  mother  went  away — and,  kneeling  down,  poured 
out  her  heart  in  a  sincere  and  fervent  prayer,  that  God 
would  indeed  give  comfort  to  her  poor  child's  loving  and 
smitten  spirit.  While  she,  the  dear,  sweet  child,  lay 
still  upon  her  bed,  and  only  prayed  with  those  groanings 
that  cannot  be  uttered,  for  strength  to  bear,  as  well  as 
energy  to  do — her  mind  grew  calmer  and  clearer,  and 
when  her  mother  came,  an  half  hour  after,  to  bid  her 
good-night,  she  was  in  a  deep  sleep,  with  something 
almost  like  a  smile  upon  her  face.  This  may  seem 
strange  to  one  who  does  not  know  that  one  effect  of 
sudden,  deep,  and  terrible  sorrow  is  quickly  to  exhaust 
the  nervous  energies  and  predispose  to  heavy  slumber. 
There  is,  therefore,  a  most  affecting  beauty  in  the  lan 
guage  of  the  Evangelist,  when  he  says  of  the  disciples, 
whom  Jesus  had  left  only  a  little  time,  while  he  went  to 
pray,  that  he  returned  to  them,  and  found  them  sleeping 
for  sorrow.  No  other  language  could  so  perfectly  ex 
press  the  deep,  intense,  and  soul-exhausting  agony  of 
mind  which  they  had  felt  on  learning  that  their  beloved 
Lord  was  soon  to  perish  by  the  hands  of  his  enemies, 
and  that  one  of  their  number  should  be  the  wretch  who 
would  betray  him  into  their  hands. 

So  Theodosia  might  now  be  said  to  be  sleeping  for 
sorrow.  She  did  not  wake  till  after  her  ordinary  time 
of  rising  in  the  morning.  When  she  first  became  con 
scious,  there  was  a  feeling  of  weight  upon  her  eyelids 
which  prevented  her  from  opening  them ;  and  as  she 


202  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

lay  there,  motionless,  the  events  of  the  past  evening 
began  to  come  back,  like  the  dimly-remembered  imagery 
of  some  fearful  dream.  At  first,  she  was  only  conscious 
that  something  terrible  had  befallen  her,  and  it  required 
some  little  effort  to  remember  what  it  was.  Then  came 
to  view  the  letter,  just  as  it  looked  when  her  mother 
handed  it  to  her  as  she  sat  in  the  parlor.  She  could  see 
every  mark  of  every  letter  of  the  superscription.  Then 
the  open  letter  was  before  her ;  and  she  read  some  of 
the  lines  as  they  had  marked  themselves  with  terrible 
distinctness  on  her  brain ;  others  she  could  not  see,  but 
only  a  dim  impression  of  their  sense  came  up  in  her  re 
membrance.  When,  as  she  ran  thus  in  her  mind  over 
the  letter,  she  came  to  where  it  read,  "  I  know  I  have  no 
right  to  dictate — but  oh !  I  do  beseech  you,  if  you  have 
any  love  for  me,  that  you  will  not  so  mortify  and  dis 
tress,  not  me  alone,"  etc.,  the  tears  flowed  freely,  and 
she  was  able  to  open  her  eyes. 

Her  mother  had,  at  that  moment,  come  in,  and  was 
bending  over  her. 

"  My  poor  child,"  said  she,  as  she  saw  the  tears  start 
even  before  she  seemed  to  be  awake — "  how  do  you  feel 
this  morning?" 

"  Is  it  morning,  mother  ?  I  have  been  asleep — I  have 
had  a  terrible  dream — or  was  it  all  reality  ?  Do,  mother, 
tell  me,  did  you  bring  me  a  letter  last  night  from  Mr. 
Percy  ?" 

"  Yes,  my  child,  you  are  not  quite  awake.  It  was  no 
dream ;  but  the  reality  is  not  so  terrible  as  you  imagine. 
Let  me  give  you  this  cup  of  coffee,  and  you  will  feel  re 
freshed." 

"  Theodosia  sat  up  in  bed  and  sipped  the  coffee — and 
shortly  afterward  got  up,  and  went  and  sat  beside  her 
mother  and  engaged  in  some  worsted  work  which  she 
had  begun  the  day  before.  When  her  mother  went  out, 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  203 

• 

she  followed  her,  and  stood  beside  her  till  she  returned ; 
so  she  continued  all  through  the  day,  accompanying  her 
as  constantly  and  almost  as  noiselessly  as  her  shadow. 
She  did  not  speak — she  did  not  weep — she  sometimes 
tried  to  smile,  but  it  was  pitiful  to  see  the  effort  made  to 
divert  her  mother's  mind  and  make  her  think  she  was 
not  so  very  bad.  In  this  condition  we  must  leave  her 
for  the  present,  and  go  to  the  dwelling  of  Professor 
Jones,  where  Mr.  Courtney  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Johnson 
are  waiting  to  engage  in  the  discussion  of  the  subject 
of  infant  baptism — which  discussion,  if  it  should  prove 
to  be  less  entertaining  than  this  little  narrative  of  what 
transpired  at  Mrs.  Ernest's,  will,  we  trust,  be  more  in 
structive. 

"  If  I  understood  you  correctly,  Mr.  Courtne3r,"  said 
Professor  Jones  (when  they  were  all  assembled),  "you 
asserted  that  there  was  in  the  Scriptures  not  the  slight 
est  authority  for  the  baptism  of  infants,  and  that  bap 
tism  received  in  infancy  is  not  valid  baptism." 

"  You  are  nearly  correct,"  said  Mr.  Courtney,  smiling. 
"  I  did  not  assert  that  there  was  no  such  authority,  for 
it  is  not  my  habit  to  deal  in  mere  assertions.  I  said 
that  I  would  prove  that  this  was  so." 

"  But  how  will  you  set  about  proving  such  a  nega 
tive  ?" 

"  By  offering  the  onty  testimony  which  the  nature  of 
the  case  admits.  Our  authority  to  baptize  any  one,  in 
fant  or  adult,  is  derived  only  from  the  commandments 
or  example  of  Christ  or  his  apostles.  All  they  said  and 
all  they  did  which  is  of  any  authority  to  us,  is  recorded 
in  the  Word  of  God.  Now  if  I  can't  find,  and  you  can't 
show  me,  any  single  place  where  an  infant  was  com 
manded  to  be  baptized,  or  any  single  place  where  one  is 
said  to  have  been  baptized,  then  I  think  I  may  venture 


204  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

to  say  that  there  is  no  authority  there  for  infant  bap 
tism." 

"  I  think  so  too ;  but  I  am  certain  we  can  show  you 
a  number  of  such  places.  Can  we  not,  Mr.  Johnson  ?" 

"  Certainly  we  can.  It  has  always  been  my  under 
standing  that  the  baptism  of  the  infant  children  of 
believers  is  explicitly  commanded  by  both  Christ  and 
the  apostles ;  and  what  was  required  by  their  precepts, 
they  enforced  by  their  example.  They  both  commanded 
and  they  practiced  it." 

"  Very  good.  Here  then  is  the  point  on  which  we  are 
at  issue.  If  the  places  are  in  the  Book,  you  can  show 
them.  I  will  not  be  unreasonable.  I  do  not  ask  even 
for  two  witnesses — I  only  require  one.  Show  me  one 
solitary  instance  of  either  precept  or  example,  and  I 
will  give  up  the  case." 

"I  have  been  accustomed  to  think,"  said  the  Profes 
sor,  "  that  the  commission  itself,  as  recorded  in  Matt, 
xxviii.  19,  and  in  Mark  xvi.  15,  16,  contained  all  the 
authority  which  was  given  to  the  Christian  Church  to 
administer  the  ordinance  of  baptism ;  and  I  had  sup 
posed  that  the  authority  to  baptize  infants  was  to  be 
found  in  what  Christ  said  on  that  occasion — '  Go  ye  into 
all  the  world,  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature. 
He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved ;  but 
he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned.' " 

"  That,"  said  Mr.  Johnson,  "  is  what  Mark  says. 
Get  a  Testament  and  see  how  it  reads  in  Matthew.  I 
think  it  is  somewhat  different.  Here  it  is — '  Go  ye 
therefore  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever 
I  have  commanded  you :  and  lo  !  I  am  with  you  always, 
even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.' " 

"Very  good,"  said  Mr.  Courtney.     "You   have   the 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  205 

law  all  now  before  you.  Is  there  in  it  a  single  allusion, 
even  the  faintest,  to  infants  ?  Did  Christ  say,  as  you* 
Presbyterians  do,  Go  baptize  believers  and  their  infant 
children — or  believers  only  ?  Matthew  says,  teach  them 
and  then  baptize  them.  So  they  must  be  such  as  can  be 
taught.  But  can  a  little  babe,  '  mewling  and  puking  in 
its  mother's  arms,'  be  taught  the  doctrines  of  salvation 
by  Jesus  Christ  ?  Mark  says — '  He  that  believeth  and 
is  baptized  ;'  so  that  he  speaks  of  none  baptized  but 
those  who  had  first  believed.  Can  little  infants,  who 
do  not  yet  so  much  as  know  their  right  hand  from 
their  left,  exercise  faith  in  the  Saviour  of  souls  ?  You 
will  not,  I  am  sure,  venture  to  say  they  can,  though 
there  have  been  some  Doctors  of  Divinity  who  were  silly 
enough  to  make  such  assertions.  And  Matthew,  in  fact, 
says  just  the  same  that  Mark  does;  for  'the  word  ren 
dered  teach  here,  is  not  the  one  that  is  usually  so  trans 
lated  in  the  New  Testament.  This  word  properly  means 
disciple,  or  make  disciples  of  all  nations.' — (Barnes' 
Notes,  In.  loc.)  So  also  says  that  eminent  and  good 
man,  Dr.  Doddridge,  author  of  the  '  Rise  and  Progress 
of  Religion' :  '  Here  it  is  to  be  observed,  first,  certain 
things  are  enjoined,  viz.  :  to  disciple — to  baptize — to 
teach.  Secondly,  these  things  are  enjoined  tin  a  certain 
order,  viz. :  the  order  in  which  they  stand  in  the  divine 
commission.' — (Dod.  Lee.)  So  says  also  that  other 
great  and  good  man,  the  pious  Baxter,  author  of  '  The 
Saints'  Rest' : 

"  '  Go  disciple  me  all  nations — and  as  for  those,'  he 
continues, '  who  say  they  are  discipled  by  baptizing  and 
not  before  baptizing,  they  speak  not  the  sense  of  the 
text,  nor  that  which  is  true  or  rational,  if  they  mean  it 
absolutely  as  so  spoken,  else  why  should  one  be  baptized 
more  than  another  ?'  '  This  text  is  not  like  some  occa 
sional  historical  mention  of  baptism,  but  it  is  the  very 
18 


206  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

Commission  of  Christ  to  his  apostles  for  preaching  and 
baptizing,  and  purposely  expresseth  their  several  works 
in  their  several  orders.  Their  first  task  is  by  teaching 
to  make  disciples,  who  are  by  Mark  called  believers. 
The  second  work  is  to  baptize  them — whereunto  is  an 
nexed  the  promise  of  salvation.  The  third  is  to  teach 
them  all  other  things  which  are  afterward  to  be  learned 
in  the  school  of  Christ.  To  contemn  this  order  is  to 
renounce  all  rules  of  order,  for  where  can  we  expect  to 
find  it,  if  not  here  ?'  'I  profess,'  he  goes  on  to  say,  '  my 
conscience  is  fully  satisfied  from  this  text  that  it  is  one 
sort  of  faith,  even  saving  faith,  that  must  go  before  bap 
tism  ;  and  the  profession  whereof  the  minister  must 
expect.' — Dis.  on  the  Eight  to  Sacrament,  pp.  91-150. 

"  Dr.  Hibbard,  a  Methodist,  in  his  Commentary  on 
Matt,  xxviii.  19-20,  says — 'It  is  well  known  that  our 
English  version  does  not  give  a  satisfactory  view  of  this 
passage.  The  word  rendered  teach  in  the  1 9th  verse  is 
altogether  a  different  word  in  the  original  from  that 
rendered  teach  in  the  20th.  It  should  read,  Go  disci 
ple,  that  is  make  converts  to  Christianity  of  all  nations,' 
etc. 

"Neither  of  you,  gentlemen,  nor  any  other  Greek 
scholar,  will  dispute  that  matheteusate,  in  the  first  part 
of  this  commission,  means  make  disciples,  as  certainly 
as  didaskontes  means  teaching  in  the  last  part  of  it. 
Nor  can  you,  or  any  man  of  common  sense,  pretend  that 
any  are  commanded  to  be  baptized,  but  those  who  have 
first  been  made  disciples.  Now  what  is  the  New  Testa 
ment  meaning  of  a  disciple  ?  Jesus  Christ  himself  shall 
answer :  Luke  xiv.  26,  27,  33.  '  If  any  man  come  to  me 
and  hate  not  his  father,  and  mother,  and  wife,  and  chil 
dren,  and  brethren,  and  sisters,  yea,  and  his  own  life 
also,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple.  And  whosoever  doth 
not  bear  his  cross  and  come  after  me  cannot  be  my  dis- 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  207 

ciple.  So  likewise,  whosoever  he  be  of  you,  that  for- 
saketh  not  all  that  he  hath,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple.' 
Do  little  infants,  who  do  not  even  know  the  name  of 
Christ,  and  scarcely  know  their  own,  so  love  Christ  that 
the  love  they  have  to  all  others  is  like  hatred  compared 
to  that  they  feel  for  him  ?  Can  little  infants  forsake  all 
for  Christ,  and  do  they  daily  take  their  cross  and  follow 
him  ?  Then  they  are  his  disciples,  and  are  commanded 
to  be  baptized.  But  no  sensible  man  who  is  not  a 
Doctor  of  Divinity  would  ever  think  of  such  absurdity. 
You  do  not  pretend  to  baptize  infants  on  any  such  grounds. 
You  do  not  ask  in  them  for  any  evidence  of  penitence, 
or  piety,  or  faith,  or  love,  or  any  thing  else  that  goes  to 
make  a  disciples  of  Christ." 

"  No,"  replied  Mr.  Johnson,  "  we  baptize  them  on  the 
faith  of  their  2)arents." 

"But  this  commission  says  nothing  about  baptizing 
the  children  of  believing  parents.  By  it  the  ministers 
of  Christ  are  commanded  to  baptize  disciples  (according 
to  Matthew)  and  believers  (according  to  Mark)  ;  but  in 
regard  to  the  children  of  these  disciples  and  believers, 
they  are  both  as  silent  as  the  grave." 

"  It  was  not  necessary,"  said  Mr.  Johnson,  "  to  put 
the  authority  for  the  baptism  of  infants  in  the  commis 
sion,  since  the  matter  is  fully  provided  for  elsewhere. 
I  grant  that  it  is  not  in  this  passage,  but  it  does  not 
follow  that  it  is  not  in  the  Bible." 

"  Oh  !  no — certainly  not,"  said  Mr.  Courtney.  "  I 
am  easy  to  be  satisfied ;  show  it  to  me  in  any  other 
place,  and  it  will  do  quite  as  well." 

"  But,  I  do  not  feel  disposed,"  said  Professor  Jones, 
"  to  give  up  this  passage  so  easily.  Does  not  the  term 
'  all  nations1  include  infants  as  well  as  adults  ?" 

"  Certainly,  but  they  were  not  to  baptize  all  nations, 
for  this  would  include  all  unbelievers  and  their  children, 


208  TIIEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

as  well  as  believers  and  their  children.  They  were  to 
Go  to  all  nations  (not  to  the  Jews  alone,  as  they  had 
been  used  to  think)  ;  and  among  all  nations  they  were 
to  make  disciples,  as  many  as  they  could — and  those 
disciples  who  believed  they  were  to  baptize." 

"  But,  Mr.  Courtney,  let  me  put  in  another  plea  for 
the  infants.  I  am  very  anxious  to  get  them  into  this 
commission,  for  I  have  always  thought  they  were  surely 
there.  It  is  evident  they  are  not  included  in  the  ex 
pression  '  all  nations,'  since  it  is  true,  as  you  say,  it 
will  include  all  infidels,  idolaters,  profligates,  and  mur 
derers,  as  well  as  the  infant  children  of  unbelievers — 
but  are  they  not  included  in  the  word  disciples  ?  May 
they  not,  in  view  of  their  innocence,  and  purity,  and 
evident  fitness  for  heaven,  be  properly  called  the  dis 
ciples  of  Jesus  ?  Did  not  Jesus  himself  compare  his 
disciples  to  them,  and  say  that  none  could  enter 
heaven  who  did  not  become  like  one  of  them  ?  I  will 
therefore,  put  it  on  this  ground :  None  but  disciples  are 
to  be  baptized,  but  infants  are  already  b}'  nature  dis 
ciples — and  therefore  infants  are  to  be  baptized." 

"  But,"  said  Mr.  Courtney,  "  the  disciples  who  were 
to  be  baptized  were  not  disciples  by  nature.  They  were 
to  be  made  disciples.  They  were  to  be  believing  dis 
ciples,  and  capable  of  learning,  for  they  were  to  be 
taught.  Now  as  infants  are  not  made  disciples  by  hear 
ing  the  Word — as  they  are  incapable  of  faith  or  of 
instruction  in  the  things  that  Christ  commanded,  they 
cannot  be  included  in  the  term  disciples." 

"  Yes,  but  infants  have  the  natural  capacity  to  believe 
and  to  be  taught,  which  will  in  time  be  fully  developed." 

"  Very  true ;  and  so  when  these  capacities  are  fully 
developed,  and  they  actually  have  believed,  they  will 
have  become  disciples.  You  know  very  well  that  chil 
dren  do  not  ordinarily  grow  up  the  disciples  of  Jesus, 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  213 

but  the  servants  of  sin,  and  all  of  them  need  conversion 
after  they  come  to  the  development  of  their  faculties,  be 
fore  they  can  be  disciples.  They  are  in  infancy  in  some 
respi  ;ts  like  to  disciples,  but  they  are  not  disciples,  but 
'  are  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath  even  as  others'— 
and  as  soon  as  they  are  old  enough,  they  show  it  very 
plainly." 

"  Well,  I  fear  we  must  give  up  the  commission.  But 
tell  me  this,  if  infants  are  not  fit  subjects  for  baptism, 
how  can  they  be  fit  for  heaven  ?" 

"  Those  only  are  fit  subjects  for  baptism,  whom 
Christ  commanded  to  be  baptized.  The  Gospel  has 
nothing  to  do  with  infants.  There  is  in  it  no  command 
addressed  to  them,  nor  is  any  act,  either  of  mind  or 
body,  required  of  them  in  order  to  their  salvation. 
They  are  no  more  required  to  believe  than  they  are  to 
be  baptized.  They  are  saved  without  either.  You  are 
required  to  do  both.  To  you,  God  says  believe  and  be 
baptized.  You  profess  to  have  believed,  but  you  have 
never  made  the  slightest  effort  to  be  baptized.  What 
was  done  to  you  in  infancy,  without  your  knowledge  or 
assent,  was  no  act  of  yours.  You  are  still  living  in 
open  disobedience  to  this  law.  Jesus  Christ  did  not 
command  your  parents  to  have  you  baptized — putting 
the  responsibility  on  them,  but  he  commanded  you  to 
be  baptized  for  yourself;  and  that  not  before  you 
believed,  but  afterward  :  '  He  that  believeth,  and  [then] 
is  baptized,  shall  be  saved.'  " 

"  It  seems  to  me,  Mr.  Courtney,"  said  the  pastor, 
"  that  you  are  rather  early  in  your  application  of  the 
subject.  We  have  granted,  indeed,  that  the  authority 
for  infant  baptism  is  not  in  the  commission  by  which 
we  are  directed  to  baptize  adult  believers,  but  it  may 
be  found  elsewhere.  A  recent  writer  on  this  subject, 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Summers,  has  very  expressively  said :  '  That 


214  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

the  New  Testament  ABOUNDS  with  the  proofs  of  infant 
baptism.' " 

"  Then,  sir,  it  will  be  very  easy  to  find  at  least  one 
text  which  teaches  it." 

"  Certainly  it  will,  not  only  one,  but  many." 

"  But  I  only  ask  for  one ;  and  if  you  have  several, 
give  me  that  first  which  you  most  rely  upon." 

"  Well,  sir,  you  have  the  Testament  in  3rour  hand, 
please  turn  to  Matthew  xix.  13,  14:  'Then  were 
brought  unto  him  little  children,  that  he  should  put  his 
hands  upon  them,  and  pray.  And  the  disciples  rebuked 
them.  But  Jesus  said,  suffer  little  children  to  come 
unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  king 
dom  of  Heaven.'  Do  you  not  see  some  authority  for 
infant  baptism  in  that?" 

"  Indeed,  sir,  I  cannot — can  you  ?" 

"  Yes,  truly.  It  is  to  my  mind  perfectly  satisfactory. 
And  I  do  not  see  how  it  can  fail  to  convince  any  candid 
man  who  reads  it." 

"  Your  mind,  Mr.  Johnson,  must  be  easily  satisfied 
then,  for  I  can't  see  one  word  about  baptism  in  it." 

"  Oh  !  I  do  not  say  that  baptism  is  expressly  named 
in  it ;  but,  sir,  the  inference  is  irresistible,  that  these 
children  were  brought  to  be  bajrtized,  and  that  the  people 
were  accustomed  to  bring  their  children  for  that  purpose, 
and  that  Jesus  commanded  his  disciples  never  to  forbid 
it,  as  you,  Baptists,  have  done,  but  to  suffer  the  little 
children  to  come  to  him,  and  make  a  part  of  his  visible 
church." 

"  Is  it  possible  !  Pardon  me,  Mr.  Johnson,  if  I  say, 
that  to  my  mind  there  can  be  no  inference  about  the 
object  or  purpose  for  which  these  children  were  brought, 
because  it  is  expressly  and  very  definitely  stated  in  the 
text.  They  brought  them,  that  he  should  lay  his  hands 
on  them,  and  pray.  This  was  all  they  came  for,  and 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  215 

this  was  all  he  did.  He  did  not  baptize  them.  He  did 
not  command  them  to  be  baptized.  lie  merely  (verse 
15th)  '  laid  his  hands  on  them,  and  departed.'  But 
there  is  an  irresistible  inference  that  I  draw  from  this 
text,  and  that  is,  that  the  disciples  had  never  been 
accustomed  to  infant  baptism.  If  they  had  been  in  the 
habit  of  baptizing  children,  they  could  never  have 
objected  to  their  coming  to  be  blessed  by  Jesus.  They 
would  have  regarded  it  as  a  thing  of  course.  But  if 
they  had,  like  the  Baptist  Churches,  received  only  adults, 
and  them  only  on  repentance  and  profession  of  faith,  it 
was  not  at  all  strange  that  they  should  reprove  those 
who  brought  the  little  children,  who  could  not  believe. 
And  there  was  a  beautiful  propriety  in  the  lesson  which 
Jesus  taught  them,  viz. :  that  though  children  were  not 
to  be  baptized,  and  were  not  members  of  his  church,  yet 
they  were  to  be  objects  of  intense  interest  and  deep 
solicitude  to  his  people.  Though  they  were  not  to  be 
baptized,  they  were  to  be  prayed  for.  Parents,  there 
fore,  ought  to  bring  their  little  children  to  Christ  by 
faith  and  prayer,  for  that  he  has  commanded,  but  not 
by  baptism,  for  that  he  has  forbidden,  by  requiring 
those  who  are  baptized  first  to  believe." 

''But  you  cannot  deny,  Mr.  Courtney,  that  by  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  in  this  passage,  is  meant  the  visible 
church,  and  that  Jesus  expressly  mentions  children  as 
members  of  it  ?" 

"  Indeed,  Mr.  Johnson,  he  mentions  no  such  thing. 
It  does  not  matter  at  all  whether  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
means  the  church  visible  or  invisible.  He  does  not  say 
that  children  are  members  of  it,  but  that  its  members 
are  like  children.  He  does  not  say  his  church  is  com 
posed  of  children,  but  of  such  as  are  like  children.  For 
in  the  corresponding  passage  in  Luke  and  Mark,  he  goes 
right  on,  and  explains  by  saying,  '  Whosoever  shall  not 


216  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  shall  in  no 
case  enter  therein.'  Mr.  Barnes,  in  his  Notes  on  this 
text,  says :  '  Of  such  as  these — that  is,  of  persons  with 
such  tempers  as  these — is  the  church  to  be  composed. 
He  does  not  say  of  those  infants,  but  of  such  as  resem 
bled  them,  or  were  like  them  in  temper,  was  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  made  up.  It  was  proper,  therefore,  that  he 
should  pray  for  them.' — Notes,  in  loc.  Olshausen,  of 
whose  Commentary,  Kitto,  a  brother  Pedobaptist  of  his 
and  yours,  declares  that  it  is,  on  the  New  Testament, 
the  best  now  in  existence — Olshausen  says  on  this  text : 
'  For  entering  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  there  is  en 
joined  that  child-like  feeling  which  enables  us  most 
easily  to  discern  the  gifts  which  have  been  bestowed 
upon  each,  and,  consequently,  puts  us  in  circumstances 
to  fulfill  our  calling.'  He  goes  on  to  say:  '  Of  that 
reference  to  infant  baptism,  which  it  is  so  common  to 
seek  for  in  this  passage,  there  is  clearly  not  the  slightest 
trace  to  be  found?  And  Bishop  Taylor,  another  emi 
nent  Pedobaptist,  says,  in  substance,  that  '  to  rely  upon 
this  text  as  proof  of  infant  baptism,  proves  nothing  so 
much  as  the  want  of  a  better  argument.' " 

"  I  think,  Mr.  Johnson,"  said  Professor  Jones,  "  that 
we  had  better,  for  the  present  at  least,  let  this  passage 
stand  aside.  It  certainly  gives  no  direct  testimony  in 
our  favor,  and  even  the  inferential  is  somewhat  doubt 
ful.  We  can  afford  to  let  it  go,  as  you  know  we  have 
many  others,  about  the  meaning  of  which  there  can  be 
no  question.  Let  us  take  this,  for  instance,  Acts  xi. 
38,  39  :'  Repent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins. 
And  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  the 
promise  is  unto  you  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that 
are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall 
call.'  Here,  most  undoubtedly,  the  parents  and  children 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  217 

are  both  included,  and  that  so  expressly  and  plainly,  as 
to  leave  no  room  for  even  the  shadow  of  a  doubt." 

"That  is,  indeed,"  replied  Mr.  Johnson,  "one  of  the 
strongest  passages,  if  it  be  not  the  very  strongest  that 
we  have." 

"And  yet,"  said  Mr.  Courtney,  "it  has  not,  in  fact, 
the  very  slightest  value  in  favor  of  your  faith  or  practice, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  furnishes  at  least  a  very  strong 
inference  against  them ;  for  if  infant  baptism  was  either 
recognized  or  practiced,  it  is  incredible  that  Peter  should 
not  have  said,  '  Be  baptized,'  not  only  'every  one  of  you,' 
but  you  and  your  children.  All  that  is  said  of  baptism, 
is  only  to  those  who  are  commanded  to  repent.  Those 
who  are  commanded  to  be  baptized,  are  first  commanded 
to  repent ;  and  none  are  to  be  baptized  but  those  who 
have  repented — not  the  penitents  and  their  children." 

"  True,  Mr.  Courtney;  but  you  forget  the  last  part  of 
the  text :  '  the  promise  is  to  you  and  your  children.'  " 

"  The  promise  of  what  ?  Mr.  Johnson.  What  promise 
is  Peter  speaking  of?  Evidently  that  in  the  Prophet 
Joel :  '  It  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days  I  will  pour 
out  my  Spirit,'  etc.  On  the  faith  of  this  promise,  Peter 
says  :  '  Repent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  and 
you  shall  receive  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  this  promise 
(that  is,  of  the  Holy  Ghost,)  is  unto  you  and  to  your  chil 
dren,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off','  etc.  It  was  no  promise 
of  baptism,  but  the  promise  of  something  that  should 
follow  their  repentance  and  baptism.  But  even  if  the 
promise  did  refer  to  baptism,  the  subjects  of  it  were  not 
infants,  for  its  application  is  expressly  limited  to  those 
who  can  be  called  into  the  repentance  and  faith  of  the 
Gospel :  '  Even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call,' 
(and  no  more).  Does  God  call  little  unconscious  iufantts  ? 
If  not,  then  they  are  not  the  persons  spoken  of." 
19 


218  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

"  What,  then,  do  you  think  is  the  meaning  of  the  word 
children  ?." 

"  Simply  their  descendants  In  the  next  chapter, 
Peter  says  to  these  same  people,  who  were  all  grown 
men  and  women:  'Ye  are  the  children  of  the  prophets.' 
And  nothing  is  more  common  in  the  Scriptures  than  to 
speak  of  the  Jewish  nation  as  children  of  Israel.  They 
were  not  a  nation  of  babies,  nevertheless. 

"  But  even  granting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  it 
was  little  children — infants — that  were  spoken  of,  then 
if  they  were  to  be  baptized  without  repentance  and  faith 
in  Christ,  so  also  are  all  the  aliens  and  idolaters  among 
the  Gentiles,  for  they  are  included  in  the  term  '  all  that 
are  afar  off.'  And  there  is  the  same  authority  to  baptize 
these  as  the  children.  They  are  equally  included  in  the 
'  promise :'  '  You  and  j^our  children,  and  all  that  are 
afar  off.'  Unless  you  will  admit  the  promise  thus  to 
embrace  '  all  the  world,  and  the  rest  of  mankind,'  you 
must  limit  it,  as  Peter  did,  by  confining  it  to  those  '  of 
you,'  and  of  '  your  children,'  and  of  the  Gentiles  whom 
the  Lord  our  God  shall  call  If,  therefore,  this  is  the 
strongest,  or  one  of  the  strongest  passages  you  have, 
your  case  is  a  desperate  one  indeed.  The  text  contains 
a  command  and  a  promise.  It  commands  men  first  to 
repent,  and  then  to  be  baptized — just  as  Jesus  com 
mands  them  first  to  believe,  and  then  to  be  baptized. 
And,  of  course,  unless  unconscious  infants  can  repent 
and  believe,  they  cannot  be  baptized  Then  it  promises 
the  '  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost'  to  those  who  have  thus 
repented  and  been  baptized  :  for  Peter  makes  this  the 
condition  of  their  receiving  it :  '  Repent  and  be  baptized, 
and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift.'  And  as  they  might  re 
ceive  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  on  these  terms,  viz. :  baptism 
and  repentance,  so  might  their  descendants,  and  so 
might  even  the  idolatrous  Gentiles,  who  were  now  afar 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  219 

off — even  as  many  of  them  as  the  Lord  our  God  should 
call." 

"  That  is  indeed  entirely  satisfactory,"  said  Professor 
Jones,  "and  1  am  only  surprised  that  I  did  not  see  it 
in  that  light  before.  But  the  truth  is.  because  I  saw 
baptized  in  one  part  of  the  passage,  and  children  in 
another  part,  I  took  it  for  granted  (since  it  was  one  of 
the  proof-texts  quoted  in  our  confession  of  faith)  that  it 
was  the  children  who  were  to  be  baptized.  I  see  now 
that  it  was  only  those  who  repented ;  and  I  am  ready 
candidly  to  acknowledge  that  there  is  no  authority  for 
infant  baptism  in  this  text,  but-  there  are  surely  man}r 
others." 

"  Oh,  yes,"  said  Mr.  Courtney,  "  you  know  '  the  New 
Testament  abounds  with  proof  of  infant  baptism.'  And 
if  you  will  turn  to  1st  Cor.  vii.  14,  you  will  find  one 
which  has  been  relied  upon  even  more  confidently  than 
the  one  we  have  just  disposed  of:  '  For  the  unbelieving 
husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving 
wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband  ;  else  were  your  chil 
dren  unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy.'  " 

"  Well,  I  should  like  to  see  how  you  will  set  aside  a 
passage  so  plain  and  appropriate  as  that  is,"  said  Mr. 
Johnson. 

"I  simply  say,"  rejoined  Mr.  Courtney,  "that  there 
is  not  one  word  in  it  about  baptism,  either  of  infants  or 
adults.  It  has  not  only  no  mention  of  baptism,  but  not 
even  the  most  distant  allusion  to  it,  direct  or  indirect." 

"  Why,  sir,  does  it  not  say  that  the  children  of  but 
one  believing  parent  are  holy  ?  and  if  they  are  holy,  are 
they  not  fit  subjects  for  baptism  ?" 

"  You  know,"  replied  Mr.  Courtney,  "  that  the  words 
holy  and  sanctified,  among  the  Jews,  were  used  in  a 
physical  or  ceremonial  sense,  as  well  as  in  a  moral 
sense.  If  the  Apostle  used  them  here  in  a  moral 


220  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

sense,  he  stated  what  was  not  true,  for  in  this  sense 
the  infidel  husband  or  the  infidel  wife  was  not  made 
holy  by  the  other's  faith.  The  faith  of  the  husband 
did  not  make  a  saint  of  his  wife,  nor  did  the  faith 
of  the  wife  make  a  saint  of  her  idolatrous  husband. 
They  might  have  been,  and  doubtless  often  were  more 
sinful  afterward  than  before  the  other  party  was  con 
verted.  Nor  does  the  faith  of  both  parents  combined 
render  their  children  holy,  in  this  sense  of  the  word : 
for  you  know  and  every  other  man  knows,  that  the 
children  of  believers  grow  up  in  sin,  and  need  to  be  con 
verted,  just  as  much  as  the  children  of  unbelievers ;  and 
without  such  conversion,  will  just  as  surely  be  lost  as 
the  children  of  the  vilest.  Did  David's-  faith  take  the 
incestuous  Ammon  and  murderous  Absalom  to  heaven  ? 
You  and  your  wives  are  both  believers :  are  your 
children,  in  this  sense,  holier  than  other  children  ?  Do 
you  not  daily  pray  for  God's  converting  grace  to  make 
them  holy?  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  words 
sanctified  and  holy  (which  are  equivalent  terms)  must 
here  be  understood  in  their  other  sense.  The  ex 
pression  is  indeed  one  of  those  Hebraisms  in  which 
Paul  abounds.  Its  real  meaning  is  very  clearly  stated 
by  one  of  your  best  Presbyterian  Commentators,  Dr. 
McKnight — for  more  than  twenty  years  the  Moderator 
of  the  Presbyterian  General  Assembty  of  Scotland : 

"  '  I  think,  therefore,'  says  he,  '  with  Eisner,  that  the 
words  in  this  verse  have  neither  a  federal  nor  a  moral 
meaning,  but  are  used  in  the  idiom  of  the  Hebrews, 
who  by  sanctified  understood  what  was  fitted  for  a  par 
ticular  use,  and  by  unclean  what  was  unfit  for  use,  and 
therefore  was  to  be  cast  awa}r.  In  that  sense  the  Apos 
tle,  speaking  of  meat,  says,  1  Tim.  iv.  5,  It  is  sanctified 
(that  is,  fitted  for  your  use)  by  the  Word  of  God  and 
prayer.  Ver.  iv.  Every  creature  of  God  (fit  for  food) 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  221 

is  good,  and  nothing  fit  for  food  is  to  be  cast  away  as 
unclean.  The  terms  of  the  verses,  thus  understood, 
have  a  rational  meaning,  namely,  that  when  infidels  are 
married  to  Christians,  if  they  have  a  strong  affection 
for  their  Christian  spouses,  they  are  thereby  sanctified 
to  them — they  are  fitted  to  continue  married  to  them ; 
because  their  affection  to  the  Christian  party  will  insure 
to  that  party  the  faithful  performance  of  every  duty ; 
and  that  if  the  marriages  of  Christians  and  infidels 
were  dissolved,  they  would  cast  away  their  children  as 
unclean — that  is,  by  losing  their  affection  for  them, 
they  would  expose  them,  after  the  barbarous  custom  of 
the  Greeks,  or  at  least  neglect  their  education ;  but  by 
continuing  their  marriages,  their  children  are  holy ;  they 
are  preserved  as  sacred  pledges  of  their  mutual  love  and 
educated  with  care.' 

"Hence  he  thus  paraphrases  the  text: — Tor  the 
infidel  husband  is  sanctified — is  fitted  to  remain  married 
to  the  believing  wife  by  his  affection  for  her ;  and  the 
infidel  wife  is  sanctified  to  the  believing  husband  by  her 
affection  for  him ;  otherwise  certainly  your  children 
would  be  by  you  neglected  as  unclean,  whereas  indeed 
they  are  clean ;  they  are  the  objects  of  your  affection 
and  care.'" 

"  I  do  not  know,"  said  Mr.  Johnson,  "  that  we  are 
bound  to  admit  Dr.  McKnight's  exposition  of  this  pas 
sage  merely  because  he  was  a  Presbyterian." 

"  Certainly  not ;  but  one  would  naturally  suppose  that 
if  there  were  any  infant  baptism  in  the  passage,  a  learned 
and  eminent  Presbyterian  Doctor  of  Divinity  would  be 
the  man  to  find  it.  Perhaps  you  can  show  it  to  be  there, 
though  he  could  not." 

"  I  do  not  say,  Mr.  Courtney,  that  infant  baptism  is 
commanded  in  this  passage,  but  only  that  it  is  recog 
nized.  These  children  were  not  morally  holy — that  is 


222  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

self-evident.  Yet  they  are  called  ('  agio?)  holy,  by  the 
same  term  which  is  sometimes  used  to  designate  the 
saints ;  that  is,  the  members  of  the  church.  Therefore, 
they  must  have  been  church  members  ;  and  as  none  were 
church  members  but  those  who  had  been  baptized,  it  fol 
lows  that  they  must  have  been  baptized.  That  is  what 
I  call  a  demonstration." 

"And  if  it  be  so,"  replied  Mr.  Courtney,  "then  the 
infidel  wife  and  the  infidel  husband  had  also  been  bap 
tized,  and  were  members  of  the  church,  for  they  are 
called  (hagiarai)  '  sanctified,'  the  same  term  which  in 
this  epistle  (1st  chapter  and  2d  verse)  is  applied  to  the 
members  of  the  church :  '  To  them  that  are  sanctified 
in  Jesus  Christ,  called  to  be  saints,'  etc.  And  again,  in 
the  6th  chapter  and  llth  verse,  '  But  ye  are  washed,  ye 
are  sanctified  ;  but  ye  are  justified  in  Christ,'  etc.  These 
sanctified  ones  called  to  be  saints,  and  these  sanctified 
ones  who  were  washed  and  justified  in  Christ,  were,  most 
undoubtedly,  members  of  the  Corinthian  Church.  It 
was  as  such  that  Paul  addressed  them  ;  and  as  the  same 
term  (sanctified)  is  applied  to  the  infidel  and  idolatrous 
husband  and  wife  who  had  a  believing  companion,  it 
follows,  of  course,  that,  infidel  and  idolatrous  as  they 
were,  they  must  have  been  members  of  the  church ;  and 
as  none  are  church  members  but  those  who  have  been 
baptized,  they  must  certainly  have  been  baptized.  That 
is  what  /  call,  not  a  demonstration,  but  a  palpable  ab 
surdity  ;  yet  it  stands  precisely  upon  the  same  ground 
with  your  demonstration." 

"  We  must  give  it  up,  Mr.  Johnson,"  said  the  Pro 
fessor,  "  at  least  so  far.  as  this  text  is  concerned,  for  if 
it  proves  any  thing,  it  proves  too  much.  It  will  be  better 
for  us  to  give  up  the  children  than  to  take  the  unbeliev 
ing  and  idolatrous  adults.  If  we  ground  our  practice 
of  baptizing  infants  on  this  passage,  we  must  baptize  the 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  223 

unbelieving  wife  on  the  faith  of  her  husband,  and  the 
unbelieving  husband  on  the  faith  of  his  wife,  as  well  as 
their  children  on  the  faith  of  either.  This  we  have  never 
done,  and  would  not  dare  to  do,  so  we  must  look  for 
some  other  passage  to  sustain  our  views." 

"  Not  quite  yet,"  said  Mr.  Courtney,  smiling ;  "I  have 
wrested  this  weapon  out  of  your  hands,  and  I  will  now 
turn  it  against  you. 

"  I  will  prove,  by  this  very  passage,  that  there  was  no 
such  thing  as  infant  baptism  known  in  the  Corinthian 
Church,  or  in  the  mind  of  Paul,  when  he  was  writing  to 
them  ;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  Corinthian,  and,  of 
course,  all  the  other  churches  of  that  day,  were  Baptist 
Churches,  in  which  neither  the  children,  nor  the  unbe 
lieving  companions  of  believers,  were  baptized,  or  in  any 
sense  regarded  as  church  members.  If  the  unbelieving 
husband  or  wife  had  been  baptized  and  made  a  member 
of  the  church,  the  question  to  which  the  Apostle  is  evi 
dently  replying  could  never  have  been  asked.  The 
Jews,  as  we  learn  from  Ezra  x.  3,  were  not  permitted 
to  continue  in  the  marriage  relation  with  their  Gentile 
wives.  Now  the  question  had  come  up  in  the  Corinthian 
Church  whether  a  Christian  should  not,  under  a  similar 
regulation,  separate  from  an  unbelieving  and  idolatrous 
companion.  But  if  such  unbelieving  consorts  were  by 
the  other's  faith  entitled  to  church  membership,  and  had, 
consequently,  been  baptized,  such  a  thing  as  separation 
on  this  ground  would  never  have  been  thought  of.  It  is 
evident,  therefore,  that  the  infidel  husband  or  the  infidel 
wife  were  not  baptized  or  made  church  members.  There 
is  in  the  Scriptures  not  the  slightest  allusion  to  any  such 
church  members  made  by  the  faith  of  others,  and  not  by 
their  own.  These  persons  were,  therefore,  in  every 
sense,  outsiders.  They  had  no  more  connection  with 
the  church  than  any  other  heathens  had.  But  the  Apos- 


2(24  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

* 

tie  says  to  their  Christian  companions,  You  have  no 
more  reason  to  discard  them  on  this  account  than  church 
members  have  to  discard  their  children,  for  they  are  also 
unbelievers,  and  without  the  pale  of  the  church.  The 
unbelieving  husband  and  the  unbelieving  wife,  and  your 
children,  not  their  children,  stand  in  the  same  category. 
They  are  all  without  the  church — all  unbaptized — and 
thus  far,  all  equally  unfit  associates.  But  as  your  chil 
dren,  though  not  in  the  church,  are  holy  to  you — that  is, 
fit  to  associate  with,  so  is  the  unbelieving  husband  or 
the  unbelieving  wife,  although  they  are  also  out  of  the 
church. 

"  That  this  is  the  sense  in  which  the  Apostle  uses  the 
terms  sanctified,  and  holy,  and  unclean,  is  evident  from 
the  fact,  that  this  is  the  only  sense  in  which  what  he  says 
of  the  parties  can  be  true,  and  this  sense  corresponds 
perfectly  with  the  common  Scripture  usage  of  the  words. 
Those  things  and  persons  among  the  Jews  were  called 
unclean  which  a  holy  person  might  not  lawfully  touch, 
use,  or  associate  with.  It  seems,  from  Gal.  ii.  12,  that 
they  considered  it  very  criminal  to  associate  or  eat  with 
Gentiles.  Peter,  it  seems,  had  the  opinion  that  only 
certain  food  was  fit  to  eat,  and  that  all  other  was  un 
clean.  And  he  said :  '  Lord,  nothing  common  or  un 
clean  hath  at  any  time  entered  into  my  mouth.'  And 
Paul,  2  Cor.  vi.  IT,  says,  quoting  from  Isaiah:  'Come 
out  from  among  them,  and  be  ye  separate,  and  touch  not 
the  unclean  thing,'  or,  more  properly, '  touch  no  unclean 
person,'  'and  I  will  receive  you,'  etc.  Things  unfit  for 
holy  persons  to  use  were,  therefore,  to  them  said  to  be 
unclean.  Food  which  such  persons  might  not  eat,  was 
called  unclean  food.  And  persons  which  they  might  not 
associate  with,  were  called  unclean  persons.  In  this 
sense,  therefore,  neither  the  unbelieving  children,  nor  the 
unbelieving  husband,  nor  the  unbelieving  wife,  were  to 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  225 

be  regarded  as  unclean.  They  were  all  equally  sancti 
fied — fit  for  the  companionship  and  affection  of  their  be 
lieving  parents  and  consorts." 

"  That  is  all  plain  enough,  Mr.  Courtney ;  but  I  do  not 
see  what  it  has  to  do  with  infant  baptism." 

"  Simply  this.  The  infidel  consorts  of  believers  were 
not  church  members — they  had  not  been  baptized. 
When  Paul  was  asked  by  the  church,  if  the  believing 
husbands  and  wives  must  separate  from  such,  he  says 
no ;  it  is  as  lawful  for  them  to  live  together  as  it  is  for 
you  to  live  with  your  children.  But  your  children  are 
holy  [fit  associates]  to  you,  and  so  their  companions  are 
sanctified  [fit  associates]  to  them.  Now  there  was  no 
force  or  propriety  in  the  comparison,  unless  the  children 
were  in  circumstances  similar  to  the  unbelieving  con 
sorts — that  is,  they  must  all  have  been  alike  out  of  the 
church,  and  all  unbaptized ;  and  if  the  children  of  be 
lieving  parents  were  unbaptized,  it  was  a  Baptist  Church ; 
and  if  the  church  at  Corinth  was  a  Baptist  Church,  then 
all  the  churches  planted  by  the  apostles  were  Baptist 
Churches." 

"  I  do  not  feel  inclined  to  grant  all  that,"  said  Mr. 
Johnson,  "but  we  have  wasted  too  much  time  on  this 
text  already ;  let  us  proceed.  But  I  see  it  is  of  no  use 
to  argue  with  you,  for  you  are  disposed  to  construe  every 
passage  so  differently  from  what  we  have  been  accus 
tomed  to  consider  their  true  meaning,  that  the  most 
conclusive  texts  have  no  weight  with  you  whatever." 

"  But  pardon  me,  Mr.  Johnson ;  do  I  not  construe 
them  according  to  the  natural  and  necessary  meaning 
of  the  language  ?  I  appeal  to  Professor  Jones  to  say 
if  I  have  shown  any  disposition  to  present  any  other 
than  the  straightforward  and  obvious  sense  of  the  pas- 
saares  which  we  have  examined." 

O 

"I  begin  to  think,"  rejoined  the  pastor,  "that  my 


226  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

•9 

brother  Jones  is  himself  more  than  half  a  Baptist,  which 
accounts  for  his  being  so  easily  convinced." 

"  Not  at  all,  Mr.  Johnson.  I  was  very  desirous  to 
find  infant  baptism  in  the  Scriptures;  I  confidently 
believed  it  was  there  ;  I  expected  we  could  have  pointed 
to  it  without  the  slightest  difficulty  ;  but  I  acknowledge 
that  I  can't  see  the  slightest  trace  of  it  in  these  proof 
texts  which  our  church  has  been  so  accustomed  to  rely 
upon.  But  though  we  have  no  command  to  practice  it, 
we  have  authority  which  is  quite  equivalent,  and  that  is 
the  practice  of  the  Apostles." 

"  Certainly,"  said  Mr.  Johnson,  "  I  did  not  expect 
to  find  any  such  absolute  command  as  could  not  be 
explained  away.  It  is  chiefly  on  the  examples  that  we 
rely." 

"  I  hope,  Mr.  Johnson,  you  will  do  me  the  justice  to 
acknowledge  that  I  have  not  explained  away  any  com 
mand  to  baptize  infants.  I  am  sure  I  would  not  will 
ingly  even  attempt  to  explain  away  any  command  of 
Jesus  Christ,  or  his  Apostles,  on  this  or  any  other  sub 
ject.  I  asked  you  to  show  me  a  command  to  baptize 
infants,  and  you  pointed  to  the  commission  as  a  com 
mand  to  baptize  those  who  are  the  believing  disciples  of 
Jesus.  You  pointed,  then,  to  an  incidental  command, 
to  let  the  children  come  to  Christ,  that  he  might  lay  his 
hands  on  them  and  bless  them.  But  as  the  children 
were  not  in  the  other  command,  so  the  baptism  was  not 
in  this.  It  was  not  for  baptism,  but  for  quite  another 
purpose  that  he  bade  them  to  come.  You  pointed  then 
to  a  command  and  promise  given  through  Peter,  but  the 
command  was  Repent,  and  then  be  baptized,  which,  of 
course,  excluded,  infants.  And  the  promise  was  not  a 
promise  of  baptism,  but  of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to 
those  whom  God  should  call  to  repentance,  faith,  and 
baptism,  which  excluded  infants  from  the  promise  as 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  24J7 

well  as  the  command.  You  then  pointed  to  the  place 
which  we  have  last  examined,  which  certainly  contains 
not  even  the  shadow  of  a  command  to  baptize  infants  ; 
and  so  far  as  it  teaches  any  thing  upon  the  subject, 
teaches  that  they  were  no  more  to  be  baptized  on  the 
faith  of  their  parents  than  unbelieving  husbands  are 
upon  the  faith  of  their  wives.  You  have  not  found  the 
commandment,  because  it  is  not  there ;  I  do  not  like  to 
discourage  you,  but  I  assure  you,  you  cannot  find  the 
example  for  the  very  same  reason.  This  has  been  con 
ceded,  over  and  over  again,  by  the  most  learned  and 
most  zealous  advocates  of  infant  baptism.  They  rest  it 
on  different  grounds. 

"  Dr.  Wall,  the  most  eminent  of  them  all,  distinctly 
declares :  'Among  all  the  persons  that  are  recorded  as 
baptized  by  the  Apostles,  there  is  no  express  mention 
of  any  infants.' 

"  Bishop  Burnet  says  :  '  There  is  no  express  precept 
or  rule  given  in  the  New  Testament  for  the  baptism  of 
infants.' 

"  Richard  Baxter  says :  '  I  conclude  that  all  the  ex 
amples  of  baptism  in  the  Scripture  do  mention  only  the 
administration  of  it  to  the  professors  of  saving  faith ; 
and  the  precepts  give  no  other  direction.' 

"  Martin  Luther,  the  great  reformer,  says :  '  It  cannot 
be  proved  that  infant  baptism  was  instituted  by  Christ, 
or  by  the  first  Christians  after  the  Apostles.' 

"  Erasmus,  another  of  the  Reformers,  says  in  his  Notes 
on  Rom.  vi.  14:  'The  Apostle  does  not  seem  to  treat 
of  infants.  It  was  not  the  custom  for  infants  to  be  bap 
tized.' 

"  Olshausen,  the  famous  Pedobaptist  commentator, 
says :  '  There  is  altogether  wanting  any  conclusive 
proof  passage  for  the  baptism  of  children  in  the  age  of 


228  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

• 
•r 

the  Apostles,  nor  can  the  necessity  of  it  be  deduced  from 
the  nature  of  baptism.' 

"  Limbroch,  another  distinguished  Pedobaptist  pro 
fessor  of  theology,  and  the  author  of  a  '  System  of 
Divinity,'  says :  '  There  is  no  express  command  for  it  in 
the  Scriptures.  Nay,  all  those  passages  wherein  baptism 
is  commanded,  do  immediately  relate  to  adult  persons, 
since  they  are  ordered  to  be  instructed,  and  faith  is  a 
prerequisite  as  a  necessary  qualification.'  And  again: 
'  The  necessity  of  infant  baptism  was  never  asserted 
oy  any  council  before  that  of  Carthage,  held  A.  D.  418. 
We  own  that  there  is  no  precept,  nor  undoubted  in 
stance  in  Scripture  of  infant  baptism.' 

"  Dr.  Hanna,  editor  of  the  North  British  Review, 
says :  '  The  baptismal  service  [of  the  English  church] 
is  founded  upon  Scripture,  but  its  application  to  uncon 
scious  infants  is  destitute  of  any  express  Scriptural 
warrant.  Scripture  knows  nothing  of  the  baptism  of 
infants.' 

"  Dr.  Knapp  says :  '  There  is  no  decisive  example  of 
infant  baptism  in  the  Scriptures.' 

"  Neander,  the  great  Pedobaptist  historian,  says :  '  It 
is  certain  that  Christ  did  not  ordain  infant  baptism.' 

"  Even  your  Presbyterian  Doctor  Miller,  of  Princeton 
Theological  Seminary,  says :  '  The  fact  is,  that  during 
the  whole  threescore  years  after  the  ascension  of  Christ, 
which  is  embraced  in  the  New  Testament  history,  we 
have  no  hint  of  the  baptism  of  infants  born  of  Christian 
parents.' 

"  So  says  your  able  defender,  Professor  Moses  Stuart: 
'  Commands,  or  plain  and  certain  examples  relative  to 
it  in  the  New  Testament,  I  do  not  find.' 

"  So  says  also  your  other  celebrated  writer  on  this 
subject,  Dr.  Leonard  Woods :  '  The  New  Testament  is 
silent  respecting  the  subject  of  infant  baptism.'  '  It  is 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  229 

evident  that  infant  baptism  is  not  introduced  as  a  sub 
ject  of  particular  discussion.  It  is  neither  explicitly 
enjoined  or  prohibited,  and  neither  is  the  practice  of 
baptizing  children,  nor  the  absence  of  it,  expressly  men 
tioned.'  " 

"I  declare,  Mr.  Courtney,"  said  the  Professor,  "this 
is  very  discouraging.  If  such  men  as  these,  all  of 
whom  are  on  our  side  of  this  controversy,  and  all  mem 
bers  of  churches  that  are  in  the  habit  of  baptizing  in 
fants — most,  if  not  all  of  whom,  received  their  own 
baptism  in  infancy — many  of  whom  were  eminent  min 
isters,  and  in  the  habit  themselves  of  baptizing  infants — 
and  some  of  the  most  eminent  of  whom  were  authors, 
who,  like  Stuart,  and  Miller,  and  Wood,  wrote  expressly 
upon  this  subject — if  such  men  cannot  find  the  '  com 
mand,'  or  the  '  example,'  it  seems  hardly  worth  while  for 
MS  to  look  for  it." 

"  I  do  not  know,"  said  Mr.  Johnson,  "what  they  con 
sidered  a  plain  command,  or  an  undoubted  example,  but 
I  conceive  that  these  statements  which  Mr.  Courtney 
has  quoted  so  glibly,  were  (to  say  the  least)  very 
'  unguarded  expressions,1  which  were  by  no  means  jus 
tified  from  the  facts  in  the  case.  I  grant  that  there  is 
no  express  command,  but  there  are  many  examples, 
which,  if  not  plain  enough  to  satisfy  Baptists,  are  such 
as  will  satisfy  any  candid  inquirer  after  the  truth." 

"  I  only  ask  you,  gentlemen,"  said  Mr.  Courtney,  "to 
show  me  one  which  j^ou  will  YOURSELVES  say  is  an  un 
doubted  case,  after  we  have  examined  the  testimony.  I 
only  ask  you  to  show  me  one  which  your  own  theologi 
cal  writers  and  teachers  will  agree  upon  as  an  undoubted 
case — or  one  which  they  will  all  agree  upon  as  even  a 
probable  case.  I  do  not  wish  to  dissuade  you  from  the 
attempt,  but  you  could  not  find  one  single  solitary  in 
stance  if  your  very  lives  depended  on  the  effort." 
20 


230  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

*| 

"  Certainly,  Mr.  Courtney,"  said  the  pastor,  "  you  are 
speaking  without  due  reflection,  for  you  must  know  per 
fectly  well  that  such  examples  are  as  numerous  as  the 
household  baptisms  recorded  in  the  Acts  or  referred  to 
in  the  Epistles." 

"  Not  at  all,"  said  Mr.  Courtney.  "  I  understand 
what  I  am  saying,  and  I  desire  to  be  distinctly  under 
stood  to  mean  that  as  there  is  not  (as  we  have  already 
seen)  any  command,  so  neither  is  there  a  solitary 
example,  either  among  the  '  households'  or  any  where 
else,  in  which  baptism  was  administered  either  to  an 
infant  or  to  any  one  else  who  did  not  first  profess  faith 
or  repentance.  From  the  first  of  Matthew  to  the  end 
of  Revelations,  you  may  examine  every  passage  in 
which  baptism  is  mentioned  or  alluded  to,  and  you  not 
only  will  find  no  infant  plainly  spoken  of  as  baptized, 
but  you  will  not  find  so  much  as  an  allusion  to  any  such 
a  class  as  the  '  Baptized  children  of  the  church.' " 

"Surely,"  replied  Professor  Jones,  "you  must  be 
mistaken  in  this.  I  am  sure  I  have  always  thought 
that  there  was  110  more  doubt  about  the  Scriptures 
teaching  infant  baptism,  than  about  their  teaching  the 
divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  I  am  certain  it  must  be 
somewhere  in  the  Scriptures." 

"  Many  people  are  certain  that  things  are  in  the 
Scriptures  that  neither  they  nor  any  body  else  can  find 
there,"  said  Mr.  Courtnej'.  "  Your  Doctors  of  Divinity 
have  told  you  it  was  there,  and  you  took  it  for  granted 
that  they  told  you  the  truth.  But  if  it  is  there,  you 
can  find  it  and  show  it  to  me.  And  ever  afterward  you 
will  know  how  to  give  a  reason  for  the  faith  that  is  in 
you  on  this  subject." 

"  But  Mr.  Courtney,  we  have  not  time  to  read  over  the 
whole  Bible  to-night,  to  sec  if  there  is  not  some  case 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  231 

mentioned ;  and  if  we  do  not,  we  may  overlook  some 
case." 

"  That  is  not  necessary.  Your  Doctors  of  Divinity 
have  done  it  for  you  ;  and  if  they  have  found  any  case 
that  had  even  the  remotest  squinting  toward  infant  bap 
tism,  they  have  paraded  it  before  the  world.  Your 
pastor  here  is  doubtless  perfectly  familiar  with  every 
case  that  has  the  slightest  bearing  upon  the  subject,  and 
which  presents  even  the  shadow  of  a  proof  in  favor  of 
the  practice  of  your  churches.  But  if  you  doubt  his 
information,  or  if  he  is  unwilling  to  trust  to  his  memory 
in  the  case,  suppose  you  take  a  Concordance,  and  refer 
to  every  place  where  baptism  is  mentioned.  Here  is 
Butterworth's  Concordance.  It  will  doubtless  mention 
every  place  where  the  words  occur ;  and  we  can  thus 
test  the  matter  at  once." 

"  Certainly,"  said  the  pastor.  "  I  greatly  prefer  that 
to  a  reliance  upon  my  own  memory  ;  for  though  I  can 
without  any  hesitation  refer  you  to  several  examples,  as 
in  the  cases  of  Lydia,  and  the  jailer,  and  Stephanus,  and 
Cornelius ;  yet  as  I  might  forget  some  place,  I  would 
leave  our  defence  less  perfect  than  I  desire." 

"  We  will  then  work  by  the  Concordance,  and  will 
come  to  each  of  those  cases  in  their  proper  order,"  said 
the  Professor. 

"  Very  good,"  said  the  schoolmaster.  "  Now  what  is 
the  first  place?" 

"  It  is,"  said  the  pastor,  "  Matthew  iii.  7 — '  John  saw 
many  of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  come  to  his 
baptism.'  We  must  admit  there  were  no  infants  there, 
but  then  you  know  we  do  not  consider  John's  baptism 
to  be  Christian  baptism,  which  was  not  practiced  till 
after  the  death  of  Christ ;  and  so  it  does  not  matter 
who  John  baptized,  or  what  class  of  persons  were  bap 
tized  before  the  ascension  of  the  Saviour,  as  it  was 


232  THEOD08IA   ERNEST. 

only  then  that  Christian  baptism,  property  so-called, 
began  to  be  administered.  I  am  willing  to  grant,  there 
fore,  that  there  was  no  mention  made  of  the  baptism 
of  any  infant  until  after  that  time." 

"  That  will,"  said  Mr.  Courtney,  "  save  us  considerable 
trouble — but  it  will  deprive  me  of  the  advantage  of  at 
least  one  very  convincing  argument  against  any  infer 
ence  for  infant  baptism.  I  think  I  could  easily  prove 
to  you  that  not  only  John's  baptism,  but  Christ's  bap 
tism  (I  mean  that  which  is  called  his,  though  John  says 
Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but  his  disciples),  was  just 
the  same  baptism  which  He  commanded  after  his  death 
— and  that  since  John  required  repentance  and  works 
meet  for  repentance  as  preliminary  to  his  baptism,  and 
Christ  is  expressly  said  to  have  first  made  disciples  of 
those  whom  he  baptized  (John  iv.  1),  unconscious 
infants  were  of  necessity  excluded,  and  would  be,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  considered  as  excluded  until  an 
express  command  was  given  to  include  them.  But  we 
will  pass  it  by,  and  the  first  case  of  baptism  that  comes 
up  after  the  commission  had,  in  your  view,  fully  estab 
lished  the  Christian  ordinance,  was  that  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  Acts  2d  chapter.  Suppose,  Mr.  Johnson, 
you  just  turn  to  the  chapter,  and  see  if  you  can  find 
any  thing  about  infants  there." 

"  Oh,  no.  We  do  not  pretend,"  said  the  pastor, 
"  that  those  three  thousand  were  any  of  them  infants, 
or  even  children.  There  were  evidently  none  among 
them  who  could  not  understand  the  preaching  of  Peter 
and  the  rest,  for  they  gladly  received  his  word  (41st 
verse)  before  they  were  baptized,  and  continued  stead 
fastly  in  the  Apostles'  doctrine  and  fellowship  after 
ward.  They  were  all  adults,  and  we  must  admit  also 
that  they  were  all  professed  believers." 

"  Very  well,"  said  Mr.  Courtney ;  "  then  we  will  go  on 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  233 

to  the  next  case ;  but  I  cannot  help  remarking  by  the 
way  that  it  is  very  extraordinary  if  they  ever  baptized 
infants  in  those  days — if  they  were  considered  as 
included  in  the  commission.  I  say  it  is  very  remarkable 
that  all  these  three  thousand  should  have  been  old 
bachelors  or  old  maids,  or,  to  say  the  least,  all  unmar 
ried,  or  if  married,  all  childless.  Yet  such  must  have 
been  the  case,  for  not  a  word  is  said  about  the  duty  of 
bringing  their  children  for  baptism — nor  among  them 
all  was  there  a  single  one  who  brought  his  little  ones 
that  they  might  be  baptized  at  the  same  time  with  his 
parent.  I  have  been  present  several  times  when  a 
number  of  persons  joined  your  society,  and  there  were 
always  among  them  more  or  less  who  brought  their 
children  with  them.  I  do  not  suppose  that  you  ever 
recorded  in  your  church  the  baptism  of  twenty  adults, 
but  that  they  brought  some  children  with  them,  yet  you 
pretend  that  the  Apostles  practiced  infant  baptism  as 
you  do,  and  still  admit  that  here  are  three  thousand 
adults  and  not  a  single  child — but  go  on  to  your  next 
case." 

"  It  is,"  said  the  pastor,  who  glanced  at  the  Concord 
ance,  Acts  viii.  12:  "'  But  when  they  (the  people  of 
Samaria)  believed  Philip  preaching  the  things  concern 
ing  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ, 
they  were  baptized.' " 

"  It  seems,  then,"  said  Mr.  C.,  "  that  these  were 
adults  too ;  for  they  were  able  to  hear  preaching,  and 
exercise  faith.  They  believed  the  preaching  before  they 
were  baptized,  and  none  were  baptized  who  did  not  first 
believe.  But  you  did  not  read  all  the  verse :  does  it 
not  go  on  to  say,  that  they  were  baptized,  both  the  men, 
the  women,  and  their  children  ?" 

"No,"    said   Mr.   Johnson,   with   a  very  perceptible 


234  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

degree  of  petulance  in  his  tone,  "  it  only  says,  '  botli 
men  and  women.' " 

"  So  then,  here  is  another  case,  where  a  lai-ge  company 
of  men  and  women  were  baptized,  not  one  of  whom 
were  heads  of  families.  It  is  very  remarkable,  for  if  the 
Apostles  taught  and  practiced  infant  baptism,  Philip 
had  doubtless  instructed  them  that  '  it  was  their  duty 
and  their  privilege'  to  bring  their  infant  children  into 
the  kingdom  with  themselves.  This  is  what  you  teach, 
and  this  is  what  your  converts  do.  If  Philip  taught  as 
you  do,  his  converts  were  a  '  peculiar  people'  truly. 
But  let  us  pass  on  to  the  next  case,  which  was  that  of 
Simon  the  magician,  in  the  next  verse ;  but  as  you  won't 
imagine  any  infant  baptism  there,  we  may  pass  to  the 
next." 

"That  was,"  said  the  pastor,  "the  case  of  the  Ethi 
opian  Eunuch  (Acts  viii.  13) ;  and  the  next  that  of 
Saul  (Acts  ix.  18)  ;  and  the  next  that  of  Cornelius  and 
his  friends,  which  I  have  sometimes  considered  as  a  case 
of  household  baptism,  but  on  examination  I  do  not  see 
that  there  is  any  mention  of  infants  (Acts  x.  47)." 

"  Please  read  it,  Mr.  Johnson,"  said  Professor  Jones. 
"  I  have,  I  am  sure,  always  looked  upon  this  as  one 
of  the  proof  passages." 

"  I  had  such  an  impression  myself,"  said  the  pastor, 
"  but  I  see  it  cannot  be  relied  upon.  '  Can  any  man 
forbid  water  that  these  should  not  be  baptized  who  have 
received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  ?  And  he  com 
manded  them  to  be  baptized.'  Now  it  is  true  that  Cor 
nelius  had  a  family,  and  he  had  called  together  his 
kinsmen  and  near  friends ;  and  it  seems  most  likely  that 
thei'e  would  have  been  among  them  some  children,  but 
still  it  does  not  seem  absolutely  certain.  It  is,  I  should 
say,  a  probable  case,  but  I  do  not  present  it  as  a  certain 
one." 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  235 

"  How  can  you,  Mr.  Johnson,  I  was  ready  to  say  how 
dare  you,  as  a  minister  of  the  Gospel  of  truth,  even 
pretend  that  there  is  any  doubt  about  the  case  at  all  ? 
Could  little  infants  in  their  mothers'  arms  '  receive  the 
Holy  Ghost,'  and  '  speak  with  tongues,'  and  'magnify 
God,'  as  these  are  said  to  have  done  in  the  44th  and  46th 
verses  ?  The  persons,  and  the  only  persons,  who  were 
commanded  to  be  baptized,  were  those  who  spake  with 
tongues  and  magnified  God.  And  it  was  on  this  evi 
dence,  and  only  on  this  evidence,  that  '  God  had  granted 
repentance  unto  the  Gentiles,'  that  they  were  admitted 
to  baptism  at  all.  He  who  could  see  a  probable  infant 
baptism  in  this,  might  see  it  just  as  well,  it  seems  to  me, 
in  the  baptism  of  the  three  thousand  who  received  the 
word  with  gladness,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost ;  or  the  five 
thousand  who  received  it  a  few  days  after ;  or  in  the  case 
of  the  Samaritans,  who  believed  in  the  Gospel  preached 
by  Philip.  If  they  heard,  repented,  and  believed,  these 
did  all  that  and  more,  for  they  received  the  miraculous 
influences  of  the  Holy  Ghost  before  their  baptism ; 
whereas  the  others  received  them  after  it,  when  they  re 
ceived  them  at  all.  These  did  all  that  those  did,  and 
moreover  spake  with  tongues,  and  '  magnified  God,'  and 
yet  you  talk  about  their  being  unconscious  infants." 

"  Oh,  well,"  said  the  pastor,  "  you  have  no  need  to  be 
come  so  eloquently  indignant.  I  said  I  was  willing  to 
pass  by  this  case.  I  will  admit  that  it  is  not  even  a 
probable  instance,  if  that  will  satisfy  you.  We  shall 
find  certain  ones  enough,  so  we  can  afford  to  be  liberal 
in  this.  You  will  not  be  able,  I  trust,  to  dispose  so 
easily  of  the  next,  which  is  the  baptism  of  Lydia,  Acts 
xvi.  15 — 'And  of  her  household;'  which,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  would  have  some  children  in  it." 

"  I  do  not  see  how  Lydia's  household  should  neces 
sarily  have  children  in  it.  I  am  acquainted  with  several 


236  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

f 

households  in  this  town  that  have  no  infants  in  them. 
You  have  none  in  yours.  You  have  children,  but  none 
too  young  to  repent  and  believe,  make  credible  profes 
sion  of  their  faith,  and  lead  a  Christian  life ;  and  if  you 
should  all  be  convinced,  in  the  revival  which  I  believe 
God  is  now  beginning  to  send  upon  our  little  Baptist 
church,  that  you  have  never  been  baptized — and  should 
all  give  us  satisfactory  evidence  of  true  piety — we  would 
gladly  do  for  you  just  what  Paul  did  for  Lydia. '  We 
would  baptize  you  and  your  household ;  but  you  would 
not  insist  that  we  had  baptized  any  unconscious  babe." 

"  But,  Mr.  Courtney,  you  must  admit  the  principle 
that  the  '  household  was  baptized  on  the  faith  of  its 
head.'  Lydia  believed,  and  she  and  her  household  were 
baptized.  Now,  whether  they  were  large  or  small,  they 
must  have  been  baptized  on  their  mother's  faith." 

"  No,  Mr.  Johnson ;  it  is  that  principle  which  I  espe 
cially  condemn  and  deny.  What  I  say  is  this — No  one 
under  the  Gospel  is  to  be  baptized,  or  to  be  regarded  as 
in  any  sense  a  member  of  Christ's  church,  or  to  enjoy 
any  of  the  privileges  oT  that  church,  who  has  not  first 
repented  and  believed  for  himself,  and  in  his  own  proper 
person :  and  if  you  will  shoiv  me  any  case  where  any 
one,  either  old  or  young,  male  or  female,  bond  or  free, 
adult  or  infant,  was  by  the  Apostles  baptized,  who  had 
not  first  given  evidence  of  his  repentance,  faith,  and 
conversion,  then  I  admit  you  have  gained  your  point. 
I  grant  that  Simon  Magus  was  baptized  while  yet  uncon 
verted,  but  not  before  he  professed  to  be,  and  gave  such 
evidence  as  was  satisfactory  at  the  time.  For  Luke 
sa37s  Simon  also  believed  and  was  baptized.  Now  Lydia 
was  baptized  and  her  household  was  baptized;  but 
there  is  no  evidence  that  her  household  were  children. 
There  is  no  proof  even  that  she  was  married,  or  ever 
had  been  She  may  or  may  not  have  had  a  husband  ; 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  23t 

she  may  or  may  not  have  had  children ;  she  may  have 
been  a  widow,  or  she  may  have  been  an  old  maid.  The 
record  says  not  a  word  on  these  points.  It  only  says 
that  her  name  was  Lydia — that  she  came  from  a  distant 
city,  called  Thyatira — that  she  was  engaged  in  the  busi 
ness  of  selling  purple,  which  we  know,  from  other 
sources,  was  a  very  respectable  and  profitable  employ 
ment.  We  learn,  also,  that  she  was  keeping  house,  and 
living  in  such  a  comfortable  way  that  she  could  afford  to 
give  the  Apostle  and  his  companions  a  home  at  her 
house  during  their  stay.  It  appears  also  that  she  had  a 
family  (oikos),  but  whether  they  were  children  or  ser 
vants,  or  both,  is  not  declared ;  but  one  thing  is  certain, 
whether  they  were  her  offspring  or  servants,  they  were 
grown  men,  for  in  the  end  of  this  same  chapter  (verse 
40)  we  read  that  as  soon  as  Paul  and  Silas  were  libera 
ted  they  returned  to  the  house  of  Lydia  and  saw  the 
brethren  and  comforted  them.  They  were  therefore 
mew,  who  could  be  comforted,  and  not  _  little  children. 
They  were  also  believers,  for  otherwise  they  would  not 
be  called  brethren. 

"  Hence  the  celebrated  commentator,  Dr.  Adam  Clarke, 
very  properly  remarks :  'She  attended  unto  the  things.'' 
'  She  believed  them  and  received  them  as  the  doctrines 
of  God,  and  in  this  faith  she  was  joined  by  her  whole 
family,  and  in  it  they  were  all  baptized.'  And  again — 
'  The  first  members  of  the  church  of  Christ,  at  this  place, 
were  Lydia  and  her  family,  and  the  next  in  all  proba 
bility  were  the  jailer  and  his  family.' 

"  So  far,  therefore,  from  being  certain  or  even  proba 
ble  that  the  household  of  Lydia  were  infants,  it  is  placed 
past  all  doubt  by  the  Scripture  itself,  that  they  were  men 
and  brethren,  who  believed  and  were  baptized ;  for  though 
their  faith  is  not  specially  mentioned,  yet  it  is  necessarily 
implied  by  the  calling  of  them  brethren." 


238  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

•» 

"  But  is  it  certain,  Mr.  Courtney,  that  these  brethren 
were  the  same  who  composed  Lydia's  family  ?  Might 
they  not  haye  come  in  there  merely  to  meet  the  Apos 
tle  ?" 

"  No,  Mr.  Johnson ;  Lydia  and  her  family  were  the 
only  converts  until  the  Apostle  was  arrested  and  thrown 
into  prison.  While  there,  the  jailer  and  his  family  were 
converted,  and  these  two  families  were  all  the  followers 
of  Christ — all  the  brethren  that  were  in  the  place.  But 
those  at  the  jailer's  house  "Paul  and  Silas  had  just  left, 
when  they  came  to  Lydia's  house,  and  saw  and  comforted 
the  brethren  there." 

"I  think,  Mr.  Johnson,"  said  Professor  Jones,  "that 
we  may  as  well  let  this  case  go.  We  can  afford  to  do 
it,  as  we  have  so  many  others.  And  it  evidently,  so  far 
from  aiding  us,  testifies  directly  against  us.  The  same 
difficulties  cannot  exist  in  that  of  the  jailer  and  his 
family,  recorded  in  the  same  chapter.  I  have  always 
heard  that  referred  to  as  a  most  undoubted  example." 

"Yes,"  said  the  pastor.  "  The  jailer  was  a  man  in 
the  prime  of  life,  as  is  evident  from  the  impulsive  char 
acter  of  his  behavior.  He  drew  his  sword,  called  for  a 
light,  and  he  sprang  in,  which  indicates  that  he  was  a  man 
of  activity  and  energy.  Now  such  a  man  would  be 
almost  certain,  if  he  had  a  family  at  all,  to  have  among 
them  some  little  children.  I  consider,  therefore,  that 
this  is  an  unquestionable  case.  The  evidence  amounts 
almost  to  an  absolute  demonstration." 

"It  is  a  great  pity,"  said  Mr.  Courtney,  "to  spoil 
such  a  beautiful  and  perfect  demonstration  ;  and  if  we 
had  time,  I  would  spare  it  for  a  few  minutes,  that  we 
might  at  our  leisure  admire  its  beauty  and  its  ingenuity. 
But  as  we  probably  have  several  other  places  to  ex 
amine,  we  cannot  afford  to  trifle  over  this.  You  read, 
in  verse  33,  that '  he  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  straight- 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  239 

way.'  Now  you  say  that  '  all  his'  must  include  one  or 
more  infants.  I  only  reply,  that  if  so,  they  were  infants 
who  could  hear  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  and  could 
believe  it  and  rejoice  in  God.  For,  verse  32,  Paul 
preached  to  him  and  all  his.  And,  in  verse  34,  he  re 
joiced,  believing  in  God,  with  all  his  house.  Now,  there 
is  not  in  the  record  the  slightest  intimation  that  there 
was  a  child  on  the  premises.  There  was  a  family,  but 
whether  of  adults  or  children,  servants  or  relations,  is 
not  said ;  but  it  is  said,  that  they  all  heard  the  Word, 
all  believed,  and  all  rejoiced,  just  as  certainly  as  they 
were  all  baptized.  There  is  the  same  testimony  of  the 
hearing,  believing,  and  rejoicing  as  of  the  baptism.  The 
Baptists  will  baptize  all  the  children  in  town,  if  they 
will  come  to  them  believing  and  rejoicing  in  God — not, 
however,  on  their  parents'  faith,  but  on  their  own. 
Your  next  case  is  in  the  18th  chapter,  is  it  not  ?" 

"Yes,"  said  the  pastor  (glancing  at  the' Concordance 
which  he  still  held  in  his  hand),  "  and  the  8th  verse. 
'And  Crispus,  the  chief  ruler  of  the  synagogue,  be 
lieved  on  the  Lord,  with  all  his  house.  And  many  of 
the  Corinthians  hearing,  believed,  and  were  baptized.' " 

"  Does  it  not  sa}r  that  their  children  were  baptized 
with  them  on  the  faith  of  their  parents?" 

"  I  read  the  whole  text,"  replied  the  pastor,  gruffly. 

"  Then  you  must  consider  it  a  very  remarkable  text," 
said  Mr.  Courtney,  "  for  it  declares  that  among  these 
many  Corinthians,  there  was  not  a  man  or  woman  who 
had  an  unconverted  child ;  for  if  there  had  been  one,  it 
would,  if  Paul  had  taught  as  you  do,  have  been  brought* 
up  for  baptism.  These  early  Christians  were  strange 
people.  There  were  three  thousand  of  them  at  one 
time,  five  thousand  a  few  days  after  in  Jerusalem,  a 
great  multitude  in  Samaria,  and  many  more  here  in 
Corinth — all  childless ;  for  it  is  incredible  that  if  they 


240  THEOI>OSIA    ERNEST. 

* 

had  children,  and  had  been  instructed  that  '  it  was  their 
duty  and  their  privilege'  to  have  them  baptized,  that 
some  of  them  would  not  have  done  it.  Nay,  all  of  them 
must  have  done  it,  or  have  stood  in  open  disobedience  to 
the  requirements  of  the  Gospel.  We  read  of  their  be 
lieving,  of  their  rejoicing,  of  their  breaking  of  bread,  of 
their  assembling  for  worship,  of  their  ministering  to  the 
saints — but  never  a  word  of  their  bringing  their  little 
children  to  be  baptized.  They  evidently  did  not  obey 
this  command,  if  any  such  command  was  given  them. 
And  there  is  never  an  intimation  of  any  reproof  of  such 
inexcusable  disobedience." 

"  I  must  say,  Mr.  Courtney,"  rejoined  the  pastor, 
"  that  you  are  the  most  unreasonable  man  I  ever  tried 
to  argue  with.  I  have  given  you,  at  least,  two  plain  and 
unquestionable  instances  in  which  the  families  were  bap 
tized  with  the  parents,  and  yet  you  say  that  out  of  these 
eight  or  ten  thousand  converts,  there  is  not  one  who  had 
his  children  baptized.  To  use  an  expression  of  your 
own,  I  do  not  see  how  you  can  dare  thus  to  trifle  with 
the  Word  of  God!" 

"  I  know,  Mr.  Johnson,  that  you  gave  us  ca&es  were 
families  were  baptized,  and  you  can  give  us  more ;  but 
you  have  not  shown  that  these  families  contained  a 
single  infant  child,  and  that  is  the  point  on  which  the 
whole  argument  turns.  I  reply  to  you  in  the  language 
of  you  own  Pedobaptist  historian,  the  celebrated  and 
acute  Neander :  '  We  cannot  prove  that  the  Apostles 
ordained  infant  baptism,  from  those  places  where  the 
baptism  of  a  whole  family  is  mentioned,  as  in  Acts  xvi. 
33;  1  Cor.  i.  16.  We  can  draw  no  such  conclusion, 
because  the  inquiry  is  still  to  be  made  whether  they  were 
in  these  families  any  children  of  such  an  age  that  they 
were  not  capable  of  any  intelligent  reception  of  Chris' 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  241 

tianity,  for  this  is  the  only  point  on  which  the  case  turns.1 
Ch.  Hist.  p.  198. 

"  I  might  retort  by  saying  that  you  are  exceedingly 
unreasonable  in  your  mode  of  argumentation.  You 
say  that  the  Apostles  baptized  infants.  I  ask  you  to 
prove  it.  You  reply  by  saying  he  baptized  families. 
Now  if  there  was  never  a  family  without  infants,  your 
argument  would  be  complete.  But  your  own  family 
has  no  infants  in  it.  It  consists  of  two  grown  sons,  a 
daughter  nearly  grown,  and  a  servant.  My  family  has 
no  infants  in  it :  it  consists  of  myself,  my  wife,  and  my 
nephew,  who  assists  me  in  my  school.  The  family  of 
our  friend  Mrs.  Ernest  has  no  infants  in  it.  It  consists 
of  her  daughter,  Miss  Theodosia,  of  her  son  Edwin, 
and  her  old  servant,  Aunt  Chloe.  All  of  whom  are 
old  enough  to  believe  and  rejoice  in  God,  as  the  jailor's 
family  did.  Should  they  all  determine  to  obey  the 
commandment  of  Jesus  Christ  and  be  baptized  accord 
ing  to  the  Gospel  order,  you  can  say  of  her,  as  Luke 
does  of  the  jailor  and  of  Lydia— She  was  baptized,  and 
her  household.  You  see,  therefore,  that  if  you  would 
make  your  argument  worth  a  straw,  you  must  go  one 
step  further,  and  prove  that  there  was  an  infant  in  the 
families.  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  it  is  probable  there 
was  one.  It  is  just  as  probable  that  there  is  one  in 
yours,  or  mine,  or  Mrs.  Ernest's,  yet  you  know  there  is 
none.  You  must,  if  you  build  an  argument  on  the 
infant  as  being  there,  first  prove  that  it  was  there.  If 
you  can't  do  this,  the  judgment  goes  against  you  of 
course.  I  need  not  prove  that  it  was  not  there.  The 
burden  of  proof  rests  on  you.  If  you  go  into  court 
and  claim  property  as  the  heir  of  a  certain  woman's 
child,  you  must  prove  that  there  was  such  a  child.  If 
you  should  prove  no  more  than  that  the  woman  was 
married  and  kept  house,  and  had  been  heard  to  speak 
21 


242  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

of  her  family,  the  court  would  laugh  at  you.  That  she 
was  married,  kept  house,  and  had  a  family,  you  would 
be  told,  was  not  the  slightest  legal  proof  that  she  had  a 
child.  And  this  is  the  point  on  which  your  whole  claim 
rests.  Peter  had  a  family,  though  so  far  as  we  are 
informed  it  consisted  only  of  his  wife  and  his  wife's 
mother.  And  so  Crispus,  the  chief  ruler  of  the  syna 
gogue,  had  a  family :  who  they  were,  we  do  do  not  know ; 
whether  children,  grand-children,  nephews,  or  servants. 
His  father  and  mother,  and  the  father  and  mother  of 
his  wife  ;  his  own  brothers  and  sisters,  or  the  brothers 
and  sisters  of  his  wife  his  clerks  or  apprentices,  if  they 
had  lodged  in  his  house  and  eaten  of  his  table,  would 
have  been  called — his  family,  his  house ;  but  whosoever 
they  were,  they  '  all  believed  on  the  Lord?  and  so  were 
not  unconscious  infants." 

"  Have  we  not  some  other  case,  Mr.  Johnson  ?"  in 
quired  the  Professor. 

"There  is  only  one  other,"  replied  the  pastor,  "and 
that  is  that  of  the  family  of  Stephanus,  mentioned  by 
Paul,  1  Cor.  i.  16 — 'I  baptized  also  the  household  of 
Stephanus.' " 

"And  that  need  not  detain  us  long,"  said  Mr.  Court 
ney,  "for  your  own  Presbyterian  Doctor  of  Divinity, 
McKnight,  in  his  excellent  Commentary,  says,  '  The 
family  of  Stephanus  seem  all  to  have  been  adults  when 
they  were  baptized ;  for  they  are  said,  chap.  xvi.  15,  to 
have  devoted  themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints.1 

"  We  have  now  examined  all  your  '  examples,'  and  the 
infants  are  not  yet  discovered.  Lydia's  family  are 
called  'brethren.'  The  jailer's  family  are  said  'to  be 
lieve  and  rejoice  in  God.'  That  of  Crispus  'believed  in 
the  Lord.'  And  that  of  Stephanus  '  addicted  themselves 
to  the  ministry  of  the  saints.'  And,  Cor.  xvi.  16,  the 
church  is  directed  to  'submit  itself  unto  such.'  You 


SEVENTH    NIGHT'S    STUDY.  243 

have  not  only  failed  to  prove  that  there  were  any  infants, 
but  I  have  proved  (though  by  the  rules  of  debate  I  was 
under  no  obligation  to  do  so)  that  they  were  all  adults, 
or  at  least  old  enough  to  hear,  believe,  obey,  and  rejoice 
in  the  Gospel.  I  leave  it  now  for  you  to  say  yourselves, 
whether  there  is,  in  any  of  these  instances,  a  single 
certain  example  of  the  baptism  of  an  unconscious  in 
fant  ?" 

Mr.  Courtney  paused,  but  neither  of  the  others  felt 
disposed  to  answer;  after  waiting  a  moment,  he  con 
tinued  : 

"  But  I  am  not  willing  to  pass  so  readily  from  these 
passages.  You  are  accustomed,  Mr.  Johnson,  and  so 
are  all  your  ministers,  to  present  these  as  proof-texts 
for  infant  baptism.  You  will  probably  go  and  do  it 
again,  though  I  pray  that  God  may  give  you  a  better 
mind.  They  stand  as  proof-texts  in  your  '  Confession 
of  Faith,'  and  yet,  in  truth,  neither  they  nor  yxm  have 
ever  believed  them  to  be  such,  or  else  you  are  more  incon 
sistent  in  3'our  conduct  than  sensible  men  are  often 
found  to  be." 

"  Why,  sir,  what  do  you  mean  ?  Do  you  intend  to 
insinuate,  sir,  that  we  Presbyterian  ministers  teach  as 
God's  truth  what  we  do  not  believe  ?" 

"  I  mean  to  say,  Mr.  Johnson,  that  you  teach  for 
God's  truth  what  you  do  not  practice — and  you  know  a 
good  man's  practice  ought  to  correspond  to  his  belief. 
You  teach  that  the  families  of  believers  are  to  be  bap 
tized  on  the  faith  of  the  head  of  the  family.  Out  of  the 
thousands  and  thousands  of  people  who  are  recorded  as 
having  believed  and  been  baptized,  you  find  three  or 
four  instances  in  which  a  whole  family  believed,  and 
were  baptized  at  the  same  time,  and  they  are  mentioned 
as  a  certain  man  and  his  family.  Now  you  say  if  these 
three  or  four  families  were  baptized,  all  families  of  be- 


244  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

» 

lievers  are  entitled  to  baptism.  This  is  what  your  argu 
ment  amounts  to,  if  it  has  any  force  at  all.  Now,  in 
every  one  of  these  instances  the  whole  family,  every 
member  of  it,  is  said  to  have  been  baptized." 

"  Very  well,"  said  Mr.  Johnson,  "  so  much  the  better 
for  our  cause — so  much  the  more  likely  that  it  included 
the  infants.'1'' 

"  It  may  be  so  much  the  better  for  your  cause,  but  it 
-  is  so  much  the  worse  for  your  consistency.  You  teach 
that  all  the  family  were  included  in  these  baptisms,  but 
you  do  not  baptize  all  the  family.  Are  not  my  wife  and 
my  nephew  members  of  my  family  ?  but  you  would  not 
on  my  faith  baptize  either  of  them.  Is  not  old  Aunt 
Chloe  a  member  of  Mrs.  Ernest's  family?  yet  you 
never  have  baptized  her,  or  urged  on  Mrs.  Ernest  the 
duty  of  bringing  her  servant  as  well  as  her  children. 
Are  not  children  of  ten  or  twelve,  or  fifteen  or  twenty 
years  of  age,  as  much  members  of  the  family  as  the 
baby  is  ?  If  these  passages  prove  that  one  member  of 
the  family  may  be  baptized  on  the  faith  of  the  head, 
they  prove  equally  that  every  other  member  may  be ; 
and  your  only  consistent  ground  is  that  occupied  by 
Mr.  Barnes  in  his  Notes  on  1  Cor.  i.  16 — 'Household 
(oikon)  .  the  house,  the  family.  The  word  comprises 
the  whole  family,  including  adults,  domestics,  slaves, 
and  children.'  *  *  '  It  was  the  custom  doubtless  for  the 
Apostles  to  baptize  the  entire  household,  whatever  might 
be  the  age,  including  domestics,  slaves,  and  children. 
The  head  of  a  family  gave  up  the  entire  household  to 
God.'  If  you  and  Dr.  Barnes  believe  this,  you  ought  to 
practice  it.  If  Paul  baptized  all  the  children,  and  all 
the  domestics,  and  all  the  slaves,  and  all  the  other  mem 
bers  of  the  family,  of  whatever  age,  you  ought  to  do  it 
too.  You  are  unworthy  to  have  charge  of  a  Christian 
church,  if  you  do  not,  at  least,  attempt  to  do  it.  You 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  245 

ought  to  urge  upon  your  members  the  '  duty  and  privi 
lege'  of  bringing  their  slaves,  where  they  have  them — 
their  men  servants  and  their  maidens — their  domestics, 
male  or  female,  '  of  ivh atever  o#e,'and  all  their  children, 
whether  infant  or  adult,  to  be  baptized  upon  the  faith 
of  the  head  of  the  family.  Nor  do  I  see  how  you  could 
well  omit  the  icife,  for  although  Dr.  Barnes  has  not  in 
cluded  her,  she  certainly  belongs  to  the  family  as  much 
as  the  '  domestics.'  If  they  refuse  to  perform  this  duty, 
which  was  thus  enjoined,  as  you  believe,  by  the  Apos 
tles,  you  can  not  do  less  than  call  them  to  account  for 
their  neglect.  If  they  will-  still  prove  obstinate,  you 
must  exclude  them  as  disobedient  to  one  of  the  'un 
doubted  '  ordinances  of  the  church  of  Christ.  They  are 
certainly  under  as  much  obligation  to  bring  all  as  to 
bring  the  infants." 

"  Yes,"  said  the  pastor  ;  "but  where  they  have  come 
to  years  of  discretion,  we  think  it  best  to  leave  them  to 
come  themselves,  as  an  act  of  personal  obedience." 

"  But  you  have  no  right  to  leave  them,  even  if  you  do 
think  best.  Lydia  did  not,  according  to  your  account 
of  the  matter,  leave  hers  to  come  when  they  pleased. 
The  jailer  did  not  leave  his — he  brought  them  all 
straightway.  If  the  head  of  the  family  is  to  have  his 
household  baptized,  on  the  authority  of  these  examples, 
he  is  not  at  liberty  to  leave  them  to  come  of  themselves 
It  is  his  bounden  duty  to  exert  all  his  authority  as  hus 
band,  father,  and  master,  to  bring  his  whole  family  at 
once  to  the  baptismal  basin ;  and  it  is  your  bounden 
duty,  as  a  minister  of  Christ,  if  you  believe  such  things, 
to  urge  the  subject  upon  their  attention.  Call  upon 
them  for  the  immediate  performance  of  their  obligations ; 
and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  church  to  deal  with  those  who 
neglect  or  refuse.  But  this  you  never  have  done. 
There  are  none  of  your  ministers  who  do  it ;  and  I  ven- 


246  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

•f* 

ture  to  say  that  Mr.  Barnes  himself  has  never  done  it. 
You  never  will  do — you,  none  of  you,  dare  to  do  it. 
Your  own  consciences  would  recoil  from  the  introduc 
tion,  in  this  way,  of  infidels,  and  blasphemers,  and  irre 
ligious  men  and  women,  into  the  church  of  Christ,  on 
the  faith  of  their  father  or  master.  As  you  would  be 
afraid  to  do  it  yourselves,  you  do  not  believe  in  your 
hearts  that  the  Apostles  did  it.  It  is  altogether  incon 
sistent  with  every  thing  we  know  of  their  character,  and 
the  nature  of  the  churches  they  established ;  and  it 
would  therefore  be  fair  to  infer  that  these  families  which 
were  baptized  were  families  of  believers,  even  if  they 
had  not  been  called  brethren  in  the  case  of  Lydia,  or 
said  to  believe  and  rejoice  in  God  in  the  jailer's — to 
speak  with  tongues  and  glorify  God  in  that  of  Corne 
lius — to  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  in  that  of  Crispus, 
and  to  give  themselves  to  the  Christian  ministry  in  that 
of  Stephanus." 

"  I  did  not  expect  when  we  commenced,"  replied 
Mr.  Johnson,  "to  be  able  to  convince  you  of  your 
errors  in  regard  to  this  subject.  I  have  often  observed 
that  the  more  one  reasons  with  a  Baptist,  the  more 
firmly  he  fixes  him  in  his  baptistical  notions.  I  have, 
therefore,  had  no  desire  for  any  such  controversy  as 
this.  It  was  only  to  satisfy  my  friend  and  brother,  Pro 
fessor  Jones,  that  I  engaged  in  it  at  all — and  I  must 
now  beg  leave  to  decline  any  further  argument  upon  the 
subject." 

"  Pardon  me,  Mr.  Johnson,  if  in  the  heat  of  debate  I 
have  made  use  of  any  expression  that  has  seemed  im 
proper,  or  in  any  degree  disrespectful  to  you.  I  did  not 
intend  to  do  so,  and  regret  most  sincerely  if  my  feel 
ings  have  led  me  to  overstep  the  bounds  of  gentlemanly 
discussion." 

"  Oh,  I  do  not,"  resumed  the  pastor,  "  decline  further 


SEVENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  247 

disputation  on  that  ground ;  though  I  might,  I  think, 
fairly  complain  of  some  of  your  expressions.  I  merely 
do  not  wish  to  continue  a  discussion  which  is  not  likely 
to  result  in  any  good." 

"  Permit  me  to  suggest,"  said  Professor  Jones,  "that 
if  we  leave  off  here  we  acknowledge  ourselves  to  be 
completely  routed,  for  it  is  certain  that  we  have  not  yet 
been  able  to  produce  a  single  undoubted  precept  or 
example  of  infant  baptism  from  the  Scriptures.  But 
since  such  men  as  Woods,  and  Wall,  and  Stewart,  and 
Coleman,  and  Neander,  concede  this,  and  yet  are  the 
firm  advocates  of  the  baptism  of  infants,  there  must  be 
some  other  ground  on  which  it  can  be  sustained." 

"  That  is  true,  sir,"  replied  the  pastor.  "And  I  have 
purposely  reserved  our  strongest  argument  for  the  last. 
But  I  am.  sure  it  will  have  no  influence  on  Mr.  Courtney, 
nor  any  other  Baptist." 

"  But,  Mr.  Johnson,  it  may  have  some  effect  on  me. 
And  I  hope  you  will  do  us  the  favor  to  present  it  for 
my  benefit." 

"We  will  not  have  time  to-night,"  replied  the  other, 
"  and  for  the  present  at  least  I  am  tired  of  the  subject. 
Perhaps  you  will  hear  something  at  church  to-morrow 
that  will  satisfy  your  mind."  And  with  this  intimation 
the  Rev.  gentleman  took  his  leave,  and  the  parties 
separated. 


THE  DAY  AFTER  THE  SEVENTH  NIGHT. 

THEODOSIA  IS  BAPTIZED 
ACCORDING   TO   THE   COMMANDMENT, 


AND    THE 


EXAMPLE  OF  THE  LORD  JESUS  CHRIST. 


THE   DAY   AFTER    THE  SEVENTH 
NIGHT. 

]E  left  Theodosia  in  that  most  distressful  con 
dition,  in  which  duty,  struggling  with  inclina 
tion,  distracts  and  rends  the  mind  with 
agonizing  efforts  to  decide  one  way  or  the 
other. 

With  her  this  was  not  a  slight  or  momentary 
strife.  It  was  the  terrible  agony  of  one  who  struggles 
for  his  very  life.  Dearer  to  her  than  life  was  Mr. 
Percy's  love ;  it  was  her  first  love ;  it  was  her  only 
lore ;  it  was  a  pure  and  holy  love ;  it  had  been  sanc 
tioned  by  her  mother's  fond  approval ;  it  had  been 
sanctified  by  their  formal  espousals ;  the  day  had  been 
set  for  the  consummation  of  their  happiness  ;  she  had 
fully  given  up  her  wholeheart  to  it ;  it  was  the  great,  con 
trolling,  soul-absorbing  passion  of  her  being ;  all  the 
hopes  of  life  were  centered  here.  To  tear  such  love 
from  out  the  heart,  was  to  rend  the  heart  itself.  Yet 
she  felt  it  must  be  done ;  and  God  gave  her  strength 
to  do  it.  All  day  long,  as  we  said,  she  had  crouched  at 
her  mother's  side,  or  followed  her  like  her  shadow. 
She  seemed  to  feel  that  something  terrible  impended  over 
her,  and  that  she  was  safer  in  her  mother's  presence. 
Not  one  word  was  spoken  by  either  of  them  on  the  one 
subject  which  occupied  the  minds  of  both.  Mrs. 
Ernest  observed  that,  as  the  day  advanced,  her  daugh 
ter's  face  became  more  natural  in  its  expression.  The 
lines  of  agony  began  to  disappear.  The  eyes  no  longer 
looked  so  strange  and  restless  ;  nor  did  they  turn  to 

(251) 


252  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

•r 

her,  as  in  the  morning,  with  that  beseeching  gaze  of 
agony  which  almost  broke  her  heart.  But  still,  she 
noticed  that  her  lips  often  moved,  though  she  uttered 
no  word  ;  and  when  she  spoke  to  her  about  the  business 
of  the  household,  it  was  some  time  before  she  answered, 
and  then  slowly,  and  often  in  such  a  way  as  to  show 
that  she  had  not  fully  comprehended  her  meaning.  Her 
mind  was  evidently  far  away. 

About  three  o'clock  she  laid  down  her  worsted,  and 
taking  up  the  Testament  which  lay  upon  her  work  table, 
turned  to  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  Luke,  and  read : 
"  If  any  man  come  to  me  and  hate  not  his  father  and 
mother,  and  wife  and  children,  and  brethren  and  sisters, 
yea,  and  his  own  life  also,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple ; 
and  whosoever  doth  not  bear  his  cross  and  come  after 
me,  cannot  be  my  disciple.  For  which  of  you,  intend 
ing  to  build  a  tower,  sitteth  not  down  first  and  counteth 
the  cost,  whether  he  have  sufficient  to  finish  it,  lest 
haply  after  he  hath  laid  the  foundation  and  is  not  able 
to  finish  it,  all  that  behold  it  begin  to  mock  him,  saying, 
This  man  began  to  build,  but  was  not  able  to  finish. 
Or  what  king  going  to  make  war  against  another  king, 
sitteth  not  down  first,  and  consulteth  whether  he  be  able, 
with  ten  thousand,  to  meet  him  that  cometh  against  him 
with  twenty  thousand  ?  or  else,  while  yet  the  other  is  a 
great  way  off  he  sendeth  an  ambassage,  and  desireth 
conditions  of  peace.  So  likewise  whosoever  he  be  of 
you  that  forsaketh  not  all  that  he  hath,  he  cannot  be 
my  disciple." 

"Mother,"  said  she,  looking  up,  and  speaking  as 
though  her  mother  had  known  what  she  was  reading, 
"  you  will  not  make  it  necessary  for  me  to  forsake  you 
too?" 

"  Why,  what  do  you  mean,  my  daughter  ?" 


THE    DAY    AFTER    THE    SEVENTH    NIGHT.  253 

"  Jesus  says  here,  that  if  I  do  not  forsake  all  for  him, 
I  cannot  be  his  disciple." 

"  Yes,  my  child,  but  that  has  nothing  to  do  with 
baptism.  It  means  that  you  must  give  up  all  to  be 
religious." 

11  To  be  religious,  mother,  is  to  obey  Jesus  Christ.  '  If 
ye  love  me,' he  says,  'keep  my  commandments.'  One 
of  the  plainest  and  most  positive  of  those  commandments 
is,  'Believe  and  be  baptized.'  Baptism  is  commanded  as 
much  as  faith.  It  makes,  indeed,  a  part  of  the  same 
command.  I  trust  I  have  believed ;  but  I  have  never 
been  baptized.  Even  if  the  sprinkling  which  I  received 
in  my  childhood  had  been  baptism,  it  was  no  act  of  mine. 
I  have  not  obeyed :  / — must — do — it  /"  She  pronounced 
these  last  four  words  slowly,  with  a  slight  pause  between 
each  of  them,  as  though  each  cost  her  heart  a  pang  to 
speak  it,  and  yet  it  must  be  said.  . 

"Well,  my  child,  if  you  must,  you  must." 

"  But,  mother,  you  will  not  forbid  me  ?  You  will  not 

make  it  needful  to  disobey  you  as  well  as  to "  But 

she  could  not  finish  the  sentence,  and  left  her  mother  to 
guess  her  meaning. 

"  No,  my  dear  child,  I  will  not  absolutely  forbid  you. 
You  know  what  I  think  about  these  things.  Baptism  is 
not  essential  to  salvation,  and  I  had  much  rather  you 
would  remain  where  you  are.  I  cannot  bear  to  see  you 
sacrifice  all  your  prospects  in  life  for  a  mere  whim,  for  I 
don't  see  but  what  one  baptism  is  just  as  good  as 
another.  And  if  you  were  not  in  such  distress,  I  would 
certainly  oppose  you,  but  I  see  it  would  do  no  good ; 
and  though  it  will  mortify  and  distress  me,  I  will  not 
forbid  you.  And  if  you  are  determined  to  do  it  at  all 
hazards,  and  it  will  relieve  you  of  a  single  pang,  I  give 
you  my  consent." 

"  Thank  you,  mother!     You  do  not  know  what  a  load 


254  THEODOSIA    KttNKbT. 

** 

you  have  taken  of!1  my  heart."  And  she  buried  her  face 
in  her  mother's  lap,  and  wept  aloud  for  several  minutes. 
Then  she  arose,  wiped  her  eyes,  and  went  into  her  own 
room  and  closed  the  door. 

Shall  we  invisibly  follow  her  there ;  see  her  on  her 
bended  knees  pour  out  her  soul  to  God ;  hear  her  cry 
for  help  with  those  inarticulate  groanings  which  the 
Apostle  speaks  of;  see  the  resolve  take  form  and  sub 
stance  in  her  heart ;  see  her  arise  with  that  same  strange 
calmness  which  we  observed  after  she  had  prayed  the 
day  she  came  up  from  witnessing  the  baptism  in  the 
river ;  see  her  open  her  little  writing-desk,  and  select  a 
sheet  of  paper;  take  her  pen  and  write,  "My  Dear  Mr. 
Percy ;"  then  pause,  lay  down  her  pen,  cover  her  face 
with  her  hands,  pressing  upon  her  eye  balls,  as  if  to 
shut  out  some  terrible  vision,  while  a  strong  convulsive 
shudder  quivers  through  her  frame  ?  It  is  past ;  she 
uncovers  her  face ;  looks  up  beseechingly  to'  heaven ; 
composes  herself;  takes  up  her  pen,  and  writes  as  fol 
lows: 

"  I  received  yours  on  Friday  evening.  To  say  that 
its  contents  gave  me  very  great  pain,  would  but  feebly 
express  the  truth.  I  was  not  only  distressed,  but  most 
grievously  disappointed ;  for  I  had  supposed  you  were 
as  sincere  and  earnest  in  your  desire  to  know  and  do 
your  whole  duty  in  regard  to  this  subject  as  I  was  my 
self.  Your  letter  undeceived  me.  I  do  not  complain 
of  it.  I  am  thankful  for  your  expressions  of  interest  in 
my  welfare,  and  of  affection  for  myself.  I  will  not  deny 
that  I  had  no  higher  ambition,  so  far  as  this  world  is 
concerned,  than  to  secure  your  approbation.  But  I 
cannot,  even  to  please  you,  venture  to  disobey  my  Saviour, 
I  intend  to  be  baptized  to-morrow.  I  am  aware,  after 
what  you  have  said,  that  by  doing  so,  I  shall  not  only 


THE    DAY   AFTER    TIIE    SEVENTH   NIGHT.  255 

'mortify  and  distress'  you,  but  I  shall  renounce  all 
claim  to  your  love.  When  you  return,  therefore,  I  shall 
be  to  you  but  as  one  dead.  I  pray  you  so  to  consider 
me ;  it  will  be  better  for  us  both.  And  if  you  will  spare 
me  further  pain,  I  do  entreat  you  never  to  solicit  a  re 
newal  of  our  engagement.  It  will  not  give  you  as  much 
pain  to  read  this  as  it  does  me  to  write  it ;  but  I  have 
weighed  it  well.  I  say  every  word  deliberately,  though 
sorrowfully.  I  will  not  cease  to  pray  for  you.  And 
will  you  not  sometimes  pray  for  her  who  was  your 

"  THEODOSIA." 

This  letter  she  folded,  enclosed,  sealed,  and  directed 
to  Mr.  Percy's  lodging  place,  and  called  the  old  servant, 
Aunt  Chloe,  and  directed  her  to  take  and  leave  it  there. 

This  done,  she  returned  to  her  mother  with  something 
almost  like  a  smile  of  joy  upon  her  face.  The  peace  of 
God  was  in  her  heart ;  and  if  she  was  not  happy,  she 
was  no  longer  wretched.  With  a  low,  but  calm  and 
almost  cheerful  voice,  she  told  her  mother  what  she  had 
clone,  and  asked  her  to  make  suitable  preparation  for 
her  baptism.  At  night  she  sent  a  line  to  Uncle  Jones, 
requesting  him,  if  he  could,  to  be  present ;  and  another 
to  Mr.  Courtney,  announcing  her  intention  to  ask  for 
baptism.  She  spent  most  of  the  time  in  her  own  room, 
alone,  until  the  hour  of  rest,  and  then  slept  sweetly  till 
morning.  When  she  awoke,  her  first  thought  was  ex 
pressed  in  the  language  of  the  Psalmist — "  I  laid  me 
down  and  slept ;  and  I  awoke  again,  for  the  Lord  pre 
served  me."  She  felt  now  that  she  was,  in  a  peculiar 
sense,  in  the  care  of  God.  She  had  given  all,  and  had 
obtained  all.  She  had  given  up  self,  and  obtained  Jesus 
in  all  his  fulness,  and  God  in  all  his  boundless  power 
and  love.  Jesus  was  her  Saviour ;  God  was  her  God. 
Yes,  the  mighty  Maker  of  the  worlds,  the  omnipotent 


256  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

Ruler  of  the  Universe,  was  not  only  her  God,  but  her 
Father.  She  felt  this  morning  that  she  might  ask  what 
she  would.  And  yet  such  was  the  overwhelming  con 
viction  in  her  heart,  that  her  loving  Saviour  and  her 
kind  Father  knew  so  infinitely  better  than  herself  what 
she  most  needed,  and  what  would  be  really  best,  that  she 
could  only  pray :  " '  Thy  will  be  done ;'  I  leave  it  all 
with  thee.  Do  what  thou  seest  best.  Give  joy  or  sorrow ; 
give  comfort  or  affliction ;  give  life  or  death.  Thou  know- 
est  best — thou  dost  all  things  well.  I  trust  myself — 
my  soul  and  body ;  my  happiness  here  and  hereafter ; 
all  I  am,  all  I  have ;  all  I  feared,  all  I  hoped  for — I  give 
all  up  to  thee.  Thou  only  art  my  portion  now ;  and  I 
am  thine — all  thine ;  I  delight  to  do  thy  will,  oh,  my 
Beloved.  I  have  now  no  other  love  but  thee,  my  Saviour, 
my  Father,  my  Friend.  Thou  art  my  all.  Jesus  is 
mine,  and  I  am  his.  What  can  I  want  beside  ?  Blessed 
Saviour,  may  I  never  leave  thee — may  I  never  grieve 
thee  any  more.  Lord,  thou  knowest  all  things.  Thou 
knowest  that  I  love  thee.  Yes,  I  love  thee,  and  I  will 
keep  all  thy  commandments.  Show  me  thy  ways.  Thou 
shalt  guide  me  by  thy  counsels,  and  afterward  receive 
me  into  thy  glory.  Yes,  me — even  me — poor,  lost,  re 
bellious  sinner  that  I  am.  Thou  wilt  love  me  freely. 
Thou  wilt  save  me  through  thine  own  infinite  mercy. 
Mercy,  all  mercy.  Not  for  works  of  righteousness  which 
we  have  done,  but  of  his  own  mercy,  he  saves  us.  Jesus, 
I  thank  thee.  Oh,  make  me  love  thee  more." 

"With  such  incoherent  ejaculations  of  trust,  and  praise, 
and  prayer,  she  rose,  and  prepared  for  church. 

It  was  strange  how  the  news  had  got  abroad,  yet  it 
had  spread  like  wild-fire  through  the  town  that  Miss 
Theodosia  Ernest  would  that  morning  apply  for  bap 
tism.  At  an  early  hour  the  school-house  was  crowded 
to  its  utmost  capacity,  and  before  the  services  com- 


THE   DAY   AFTER    THE    SEVENTH    NIGHT.  257 

menced,  even  the  windows  and  the  doors,  and  every 
place  was  occupied  from  which  one  could  hope  to  catch 
a  glimpse  at  what  was  going  on  within,  or  hear  a  word 
of  what  was  said. 

The  church  bells  began  to  ring.  Mrs.  Ernest  had 
all  the  morning  been  distracted  between  affection  for 
her  lovely  child,  which  prompted  her  to  go  to  the  school- 
house,  and  pride,  which  urged  her  to  go  and  sit  in  her 
own  pew  as  though  nothing  had  happened.  Curiosity 
to  see  and  hear  .what  Theodosia  would  do  and  say,  and 
what  sort  of  people  these  Baptists  were,  joined  with 
affection  in  pleading  for  the  school-house ;  and  a  sort 
of  indefinite  dread  of  what  Mr.  Johnson  might  say,  came 
to  the  help  of  pride.  And,  it  may  be,  there  was  some 
thing  like  a  mistaken  sense  of  religious  duty  which 
spake  on  that  side  also.  However  this  may  be,  the  first 
few  strokes  of  the  costly  and  solemn-sounding  bell 
which  had  been  accustomed  to  call  her  to  church, 
seemed  suddenly  to  decide  her. 

"  I  want  you  to  understand,  Theodosia,"  said  she, 
"that  though  I  do  not  forbid,  yet  I  do  not  altogether 
approve  of  what  you  are  about  to  do,  and  I  cannot 
sanction  any  such  proceedings  by  my  presence.  I 
don't  know  what  Mr.  Johnson  would  think  of  me,  if  I 
should  forsake  our  own  dear  church  to  wander  about 
after  these  new  comers." 

This  was  a  new  disappointment  to  the  sensitive  child. 
She  had  greatly  relied  on  her  mother's  presence  to  sus 
tain  her  in  the  untried  scenes  through  which  she  was  about 
to  pass.  She  had  also  hoped  that  Uncle  Jones  would 
call  and  go  with  her,  but  he  had  not  come,  and  she  was 
alone.  Yet  she  was  not  alone,  for  she  looked  up  as  her 
mother  was  speaking,  and  in  her  heart  said  again,  "  Not 
my  will,  but  thine  be  done  1" — And  the  Spirit  replied, 
"  Fear  not,  for  /  am  with  thee ;  and  be  not  dismayed, 


258  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

f" 

for  I  am  thy  God !"  "  When  my  father  and  my  mother 
forsake  me  the  Lord  will  take  me  up." 

I  do  not  say  that  she  felt  no  natural  misgivings,  no 
modest  shrinking  from  going  alone  into  a  house  filled 
with  strangers,  with  the  consciousness  that  every  eye 
was  on  her,  and  every  heart  full  of  curiosity  to  see  how 
she  would  look,  what  she  would  do,  and  what  she  would 
say ;  but  she  thought  much  less  of  this  than  my  reader 
would  naturally  suppose.  The  peace  of  God  was  in  her 
heart,  and  it  gave  to  her  mind  and  her  manner  a  quiet 
yet  determined  calmness,  and  a  collectedness  of  thought 
and  perfect  self-possession  which  was  surprising  even  to 
herself. 

She  set  out  therefore  alone ;  for  Edwin  had  not 
returned  from  Sabbath-school.  Two  or  three  times  the 
mother  turned  and  looked  after  her  as  she  went,  and 
wished  she  could  consistently,  and  without  displeasing 
Mr.  Johnson,  have  gone  with  the  dear  child. 

Mr.  Courtney  had  taken  it  for  granted  that  Uncle 
Jones  or  some  of  the  family  would  accompany  her,  and 
when  he  saw  her  coming  by  herself,  he  hastened  to  meet 
her,  and  conducted  her  to  a  seat. 

The  preacher  was  not  the  same  who  had  been  there 
before,  but  a  stranger  who  had  providentially  been  sent 
to  fill  his  place.  He  was  a  man  about  forty  years  of 
age,  rather  below  than  above  the  ordinary  size ;  his 
complexion  dark,  his  hair  slightly  silvered  with  gray, 
and  the  top  of  his  head  almost  bald.  His  eyes,  and 
indeed  the  whole  expression  of  his  face,  were  somewhat 
peculiar.  He  seemed  to  have  been  long  in  feeble  health, 
and  his  face  was  marked  with  lines  of  suffering.  Its 
habitual  expression  was  one  of  sad  and  sorrowful 
resignation.  The  casual  observer  saw  in  it  no  evidence 
of  lofty  genius,  or  of  even  extraordinary  talent — and 
yet  he  was  an  extraordinary  man.  Though  he  had  but 


THE   DAY   AFTER    THE    SEVENTH    NIGHT.  259 

slight  acquaintance  with  the  technicalities  of  logic,  he  was 
a  clear  and  powerful  reasoner.  Though  he  knew  little 
of  the  scholastic  theories  of  theology,  he  was  wonder 
fully  familiar  with  the  teachings  of  Jesus  and  the 
Apostles.  Though  he  professed  no  acquaintance  with 
the  metaphysical  subtleties  of  mental  philosophy,  he 
knew  full  well  how  to  conriuce  the  understanding  and 
move  upon  the  hearts  of  his  hearers.  He  was  not 
familiar  with  the  ancient  classics,  yet  his  style  was  pure 
and  strong,  and  not  entirely  void  of  elegance.  His 
tones  and  gestures  were  not  formed  by  any  rules  of 
oratory,  yet  he  was  sometimes  very  eloquent.  When 
he  first  rose,  there  was  a  slight  rusticity  in  his  manner, 
and  something  in  his  dress  which  for  a  single  moment 
struck  Theodosia  unpleasantly ;  but  there  was,  also, 
such  an  air  of  trusting  meekness,  that  this  impression 
was  removed  almost  as  soon  as  made.  His  text  was 
John  xv.  14 — "  Ye  are  my  friends  if  ye  do  whatsoever  I 
command  you."  And  the  main  object  of  his  sermon 
was  to  show  the  vast  difference  which  there  is  between 
the  so-called  obedience  which  springs  from  hope,  or 
grows  up  from  fear,  and  the  willing  and  true  obedience 
of  the  Gospel  which  is  produced  by  love.  It  was  a  deep, 
heart-searching  discourse,  and  must  have  left  on  every 
attentive  hearer's  mind  the  sad  conviction  that  genuine 
Gospel  obedience  is  much  more  rare  than  is  commonly 
imagined.  We  cannot  follow  him  through  all  his  argu 
ment  ;  but  we  may  not  omit  one  portion  of  it.  "  The 
obedience  of  love,"  said  he,  "  makes  no  division  of 
Christ's  commandments  into  essential  and  non-essential. 
'Ye  are  my  friends  if  ye  do  whatever  I  command  you,' 
whether  you  think  it  important  or  not.  We  know  that 
we  love  him  when  we  have  respect  unto  all  his  com 
mandments.  The  obedience  of  hope  saj'S,  how  much 
must  I  do  to  be  permitted  to  enter  heaven  ?  The 


260  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

* 

obedience  of  fear  asks,  what  may  I  omit  to  do,  and  yet 
escape  from  hell  ?  The  obedience  of  love  simply 
inquires,  '  Lord,  what  wilt  THOU  have  me  to  do  ?'  It 
does  not  ask,  what  must  I  do  ?  but  what  can  I  do  to  show 
my  love  for  Jesus  ?  It  does  not  ask  how  far  I  can  ven 
ture  to  disobey,  and  keep  my  hope  of  heaven?  How 
far  off  can  I  follow  Jesus,  and  yet  not  be  disowned  of 
him  ?  Oh,  never,  never !  He  who  will  obey  Christ  no 
farther  than  he  may  fancy  is  essential  to  salvation,  has 
never  obeyed  him  at  all.  Love  of  self,  not  love  of 
Christ,  is  his  controlling  motive.  He  is  striving  not  to 
please  his  Saviour  but  to  secure  his  own  personal  happi 
ness.  Love  teaches  a  different  way.  Love  delights  to 
do  his  will.  Love  delights  to  do  all  his  will.  Love 
never  asks,  what  is  essential  to  salvation  ?  but  what  did 
Jesus  Christ  command  ?  Love  never  asks,  how  little 
may  I  do  ?  but  how  much  can  I  do  ?  If  he  commands, 
that  is  reason  enough.  He  is  no  loving  child  who  will 
obey  his  father  only  in  those  things  which  he  must  do, 
or  be  disowned  and  disinherited.  He  is  no  loving  child 
who  will  do  all  he  dare  to  grieve  a  doting  parent  whom 
he  believes  will  pardon  all,  and  love  him  though  he 
grieves  him.  He  who  truly  loves  him  wrll  obey  his 
slightest  desires  as  well  as  his  most  peremptory  com 
mands.  He  who  truly  loves  will  study  to  know  all  his 
will,  and  in  his  very  heart  delight  to  do  it — not  to  avoid 
disinheritance — not  to  secure  his  estate — not  to  enjoy 
hjs  father's  bounty,  either  present  or  prospective — but 
simply  because  the  'father  ivishes,  asks  it,  or  com 
mands  it. 

"  And  yet  men  call  themselves  obedient  childi'en  of 
God,  while  they  refuse  to  do  what  he  commands,  because 
he  does  not  add  to  the  command  a  promise  of  heaven  or 
a  threatening  of  hell.  Oh,  it  is  terrible  to  think  how 
fearful  will  be  their  disappointment !  Obeying  only  to 


THE    DAY    AFTER    THE    SEVENTH    NIGHT.  261 

secure  salvation  is  itself  sufficient  proof  that  they  have 
not  obeyed  unto  salvation.  Omitting  all  but  what  they 
think  essential  to  salvation  is  of  itself  sufficient  proof 
that  they  have  omitted  all  that  is  essential  to  salvation. 
The  faith  of  the  Gospel  works  by  love,  and  love  is  obe 
dient  to  all  his  commandments,  so  far  as  it  is  able  to 
know  and  to  do  them.  When,  therefore,  Christ  Jesus 
gives  a  plain  command,  as  that  to  '  believe  and  be  bap 
tized,'  love  will  not  be  content  merely  to  believe.  It 
will  do  both.  It  will  do  whatever  Christ  commands, 
and  he  who  stops  because  there  is  no  penalty  of  hell  fire 
attached  to  the  last,  as  there  is  to  the  first  part  of  the 
command,  is  no  friend  to  Jesus.  He  does  not  obey  from 
love  to  Jesus,  but  from  love  to  self.  And  further,  the 
obedience  of  love  takes  the  command  as  it  is  given.  It 
obeys  in  the  same  order  that  Christ  requires.  It  not 
only  does  the  very  acts  which  he  commands,  but  does 
them  in  that  very  way  that  he  requires  them  to  be  done. 
If  Christ  commands  first  to  believe  and  then,  when  thus 
prepared,  to  be  baptized,  the  obedience  of  love  will  never 
venture  to  reverse  Christ's  order.  It  will  not  seek  to  be 
first  baptized  and  then  believe.  And  as  the  command 
requires  personal  obedience,  it  will  never  seek  to  substi 
tute  obedience  rendered  by  another.  Christ  commands 
you  yourselves  in  your  own  right,  and  for  yourselves,  to 
believe,  and  then  to  be  baptized.  It  may  be  you  have 
not  done  either.  Oh,  what  a  fearful  state !  Not  to  have 
even  begun  to  obey !  It  may  be  you  have  believed,  but 
are  fancying  that  an  act  done  by  your  parents,  and  your 
pastor,  without  your  knowledge  or  consent,  and  which 
they  called  baptism,  has  released  you  from  the  obliga 
tion  to  obey  yourself.  But  do  not  mistake.  The  religion 
of  Christ  is  a  personal  religion.  The  obedience  it  re 
quires  is  an  intelligent  and  personal  obedience.  You 
must  be  baptized  for  yourself.  It  must  be  an  act  of 


262  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

your  own.  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be 
saved.  The  one  is  to  be  your  own  act  as  much  as  the 
other.  But  this  command  you  have  never  even  tried  to 
obey.  You  have  never  made  the  slightest  effort.  Oh, 
if  you  love  Jesus,  will  you  not  at  least  try  to  obey  all 
his  commandments  ? 

"  One  thought  more.  The  obedience  of  love  does  what 
HE  commands.  '  Ye  are  my  friends,  if  ye  do  whatever 
/command' — not  what  others  may  put  in  the  place  of 
it — not  what  you  may  fancy  would  do  as  well.  You  are 
not  to  'teach  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men.' 
Jesus  is  the  sole  Lawgiver  of  his  church.  His  com 
mandments,  given  in  person  or  by  those  who  spake  as 
they  were  moved  by  his  Holy  Spirit,  we  must  obey.  Tf 
he  was  immersed  in  Jordan,  then  John's  baptism  was 
immersion.  If  John's  baptism  was  immersion,  then  the 
baptism  administered  by  Jesus  and  his  disciples  was 
immersion ;  for  John  says,  Jesus  went  into  a  certain 
place,  and  there  he  tarried  and  baptized.  And  John 
also  was  baptizing  in  JSnon  at  the  same  time.  And  the 
Pharisees  heard  how  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized  more 
disciples  than  John.  Whatever  one  did  the  other  did. 
It  was  the  same  thing,  because  it  is  called  in  the  same 
connection  by  the  same  name.  And  if  Jesus  and  John 
immersed,  it  was  immersion  that  he  commanded.  Yet 
men  have  done  away  with  what  HE  commanded,  and 
substituted  sprinkling  in  its  place.  To  believe  and  be 
sprinkled,  therefore,  is  not  to  do  whatever  he  commands, 
but  to  teach  and  practice  for  his  commands  the  doc 
trines  of  men ;  and  of  those  who  do  such  things  he  says, 
1  In  vain  do  they  worship  me. '  Don't  call  me  bigoted 
for  reminding  you  of  this.  They  are  not  my  words,  but 
the  words  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  he  who  says  it ;  and  I 
believe  that  he  means  just  what  he  says.  Popes  and 
cardinals,  bishops  and  priests,  have  met  in  solemn  con- 


THE    DAY    AFTER    THE    SEVENTH    NIGHT.  263 

clave  and  changed  the  ordinance  of  Jesus.  They  have 
substituted  the  sprinkling  of  infants  for  the  immersion 
of  believers.  This  was  ordained  by  Christ,  and  that  by 
anti-Christ.  Yet  there  are  many  professed  believers, 
men  who  would  be  grieved  if  I  should  intimate  that  they 
did  not  love  the  Saviour — who  in  his  name  and  as  his 
ordinance  practice  these  commandments  of  men.  The 
very  time  and  place  when  and  where  these  changes  were 
thus  made  by  popes  and  councils  is  recorded  by  them 
selves.  They  claim  to  have  authority  as  the  vicegerents 
of  Christ  on  earth  to  make  such  changes.  But  the  obe 
dience  of  love  will  never  recognize  their  rule.  It  obeys 
Jesus  Christ.  It  does  whatever  HE  commands.  And 
whenever  professed  religious  teachers,  whether  Catholic 
or  Protestant,  teach  other  commandments  as  a  substitute 
for  his — it  rejects  them  with  disdain." 

After  the  sermon,  he  came  down  from  the  little  plat 
form  which  had  been  erected  for  his  convenience,  and 
announced  the  church  as  ready  to  receive  applicants  for 
membership — requesting  if  there  were  any  present  who 
desired  to  unite  with  it,  that  they  would  come  forward 
while  the  brethren  sang  a  hymn,  and  take  a  seat  allotted 
for  that  purpose. 

The   brethren   immediately  commenced   singing   the 

hymn —  s*  •  •» '  <. 

"  'Tis  religion  that  can  give 
Sweetegt  pleasures  while  we  live  ;       v^/Y^ 
'Tis  religion  can  supply 
Solid  comfort  when  we  die." 

Before  they  had  completed  the  first  couplet,  Theo- 
dosia  arose  and  walked  to  the  appointed  seat.  And 
when  they  had  finished,  the  minister  asked  her  to  give 
to  the  church  some  account  of  her  religious  experience, 
that  they  might  be  able  to  judge  of  the  nature  of  her 
faith  and  hope. 


264  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

» 

My  reader,  who  is  familiar  with  her  strength  of  mind, 
firmness  of  purpose,  clearness  of  conception,  and  habit 
ual  command  of  the  most  appropriate  language,  can 
form  little  conception  of  the  surprise  which  was  excited, 
as  much  by  her  manner  as  her  words.  She  did  not  wait 
to  be  questioned,  and  simply  answer  yes  or  no,  as  is 
customary  on  such  occasions ;  but  modestly  arose  and 
turned  her  face  to  the  audience,  and  began  to  relate  in  a 
low,  but  still  in  a  perfectly  audible  voice,  her  experience 
of  grace  before  she  made  any  profession  of  religion. 
The  house  was  still  as  death.  Every  eye  was  fixed, 
every  ear  attentive  to  even  the  slightest  modulation  of 
her  voice.  After  describing,  in  her  modest  and  simple, 
yet  most  impressive  style,  her  conviction  and  conver 
sion,  she  paused  a  moment,  as  if  to  think  of  the  pro 
priety  of  saying  what  was  yet  upon  her  mind. 

"And  why,"  inquired  the  minister,  who  was  ignorant 
of  her  history,  "  did  you  not  then  unite  with  the  people 
of  God  ?" 

"At  that  time,"  she  continued,  "  I  had  rarely  been  in 
any  other  but  a  Presbyterian  house  of  worship.  I  re 
garded  Presbyterians  as  the  true  church  of  Christ. 
Perhaps  I  would  not  be  going  too  far  if  I  should  say, 
that  I  regarded  them  as  the  only  true  church,  or  at  least 
as  the  only  church  that  was  not  involved  in  some  most 
important  error  of  doctrine  or  practice — it  was  my 
mother's  church  ;"  and  her  voice  faltered,  and  eyes  filled 
with  tears,  as  she  said  it.  "  It  was  the  church  in  which 
God's  truth  had  been  made  effectual  to  my  conversion. 
I  had  no  shadow  of  a  doubt  that  it  was  the  church,  if 
not  the  only  church,  and  with  them  I  did  unite.  Nor, 
until  last  Sabbath,,  did  I  ever  have  a  doubt  that  I  was 
right  in  doing  so.  Last  Sabbath,  you  will  recollect,  one 
of  your  number  was  baptized.  I  had  the  curiosity  to 
go  to  the  river.  As  I  saw  her  plunged  beneath  the 


THE   DAY   AFTER   THE    SEVENTH    KIGHT.  265 

water,  the  thought  impressed  itself  upon  my  mind,  if 
that  is  baptism,  I  have  never  been  baptized;  for  whatever 
baptism  may  be,  it  must  always  be  the  same — '  One 
Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism.'  I  went  home  and  com 
menced  a  careful  and  thorough  investigation  of  the  sub 
ject.  I  found  that  it  was  immersion,  and  not  sprinkling, 
that  Jesus  commanded.  It  was  this  which  HE  himself, 
as  our  Example*,  submitted  to  in  the  river  of  Jordan. 
It  was  this  which  his  disciples  practiced  in  his  life.  It 
was  this  which  he  commanded  after  his  death.  It  was 
this,  therefore,  which  he  required  of  me.  I  hare  not  yet 
obeyed  him,  but  I  desire  '  to  do  whatever  he  commands 
me.'  Mine  is,  I  humbly  trust,  the  'obedience  of  love.' 
I  have  come  here  to-day,  and  it  is  the  first  time  in  my 
life  that  I  have  ever  been  in  a  Baptist  Church.  I  have 
come  to  ask  you  to  baptize  me,  if  you  think  me  worthy, 
according  to  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  Jesus." 

"  Why,  this  is  wonderful !"  exclaimed  the  minister, 
as  she  resumed  her  seat. 

"It  is  the  Lord's  doing,"  rejoined  Mr.  Courtney,  "and 
it  is  wonderful  in  our  eyes." 

"  Brethren,  what  will  we  do  in  regard  to  this  applica 
tion  ?" 

"  I  move,"  said  one,  "  that  she  be  baptized,  and  re 
ceived  into  the  fellowship  of  the  church." 

This  was,  of  course,  unanimously  determined  on. 

"  When  will  you  be  baptized,  my  sister  ?"  inquired 
the  minister. 

"As  soon  as  it  may  suit  your  convenience,  sir.  I  am 
ready  now." 

"  Then  after  prayer  we  will  at  once  proceed  to  the 
water's  side.  Let  us  pray." 

They  kneeled,  and  offered  up  a  short  and  fervent 
prayer  that  God  would  own  the  ordinance  about  to  be 
administered  in  his  name — bless  her  who  was  to  be  its 


266  TIIEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

if 

recipient — fill  her  with  the  comforts  of  the  Gospel — 
make  her  a  faithful  and  useful  Christian,  and  at  death 
receive  her  into  his  heavenly  kingdom. 

When  Satan  finds  that  he  cannot  prevent  the  perform 
ance  of  a  religious  duty,  he  often  strives  to  render  its 
performance  as  distressing  as  he  can.  Theodosia  had 
not  yet  left  the  house  before  she  began  to  be  assailed  by 
the  most  terrible  temptations.  First  came  the  magnifi 
cent  church,  with  its  soft  light,  its  cushioned  pews,  its 
richly  carpeted  aisles,  its  tasteful  and  costly  pulpit,  its 
deep-toned  organ,  and  its  well-trained  choir,  which  had 
all  her  life  been  the  accompaniments  of  her  public  de 
votions.  And  she  could  not  but  contrast  their  rich, 
luxurious  elegance  and  comfort,  with  the  rough  plat 
form,  the  naked,  dirty  floor,  the  hard  benches,  and  harsh, 
unskillful  voices  which  had  surrounded  her  to-day.  In 
that  splendid  church  she  saw  her  mother  weeping  over 
her  daughter's  apostacy — her  brother  showing  no  in 
terest  in  her  fate — her  uncle,  whom  she  loved  as  a 
father,  and  upon  whose  approbation  she  had  confidently 
relied,  yet  he  had  not  come  near  her,  though  she  had 
earnestly  requested  his  presence — her  pastor,  who  had 
taught  her  in  childhood,  and  pra}red  over  her  at  her  con 
version — and  there  was  yet  another,  whom  she  now 
scarcely  dared  to  think  of.  They  were  all  there — all 
happy,  all  united.  She  only  was  a  poor  outcast  from 
all — yes,  yes,  from  all  she  loved.  With  her  own  rash 
hand  she  had  cut  the  ties  which  bound  her  to  her  kin 
dred  and  her  friends.  She  had  left  all  the  elegance  so 
congenial  to  her  delicacy  and  refinement  of  taste.  She 
had  left  all  the  affection  so  necessary  to  the  very  life  of 
her  fond,  clinging,  loving  heart,  and  here  she  stood  alone 
among  these  strangers,  whom,  she  felt  instinctively,  with 
one  or  two  exceptions,  had  scarcely  a  sentiment  or  taste 
Uj.  common  with  her  own.  Then,  as  she  was  walking  to 


THE    DAY    AFTER    THE    SEVENTH    NIGHT.  269 

the  river,  they  passed  the  very  spot  where  she  and  Mr. 
Percy  stood  on  the  previous  Sabbath ;  and  in  a  single 
moment,  what  visions  of  affluence  and  ease,  of  elegant 
social  enjoyment,  of  domestic  bliss — nil  the  happiness 
of  the  loved  and  loving  wife,  extending  down  through 
many  long  and  blissful  years — came  vividly  before  her 
mind.  She  could  see  nothing  else.  She  forgot  for  a 
moment  where  she  was,  and  why  she  came  there.  She 
walked  on  unconsciously.  Unconsciously  she  took  the 
oiFercd  arm  of  the  minister  as  he  came  to  conduct  her 
into  the  river.  The  touch  of  the  water  recalled  her  to 
herself.  She  paused,  and  suddenly  withdrew  her  arm, 
clasped  her  hands  together,  and  looked  up  to  heaven, 
and  so  stood  for  some  moments,  lost  in  silent  prayer, 
Those  who  could  see  her  face,  observed  the  expression 
of  distress  and  terror  (which  they  attributed  to  a  natu 
ral  timidity  at  entering  the  water)  suddenly  gave  place 
to  one  of  joy  and  confidence  as  she  again  placed  her  arm 
within  the  minister's  and  walked  on.  Jesus  had  heard 
her  prayer — "  Oh,  Lord,  save  me  1  Give  me  strength  to 
make  all  this  sacrifice  for  thee !  Thou  art  my  Saviour. 
Thou  hast  commanded  this.  I  do  it  in  obedience  to 
thee.  Oh,  leave  me  not.  Help,  Lord — I  have  no  other 
helper — thou  art  now  my  all."  And  as  she  prayed,  the 
visions  of  earthly  bliss  vanished  from  before  her,  and 
she  saw  Jesus  stretched  upon  the  cross  in  dying  agony, 
and  he  seemed  to  say,  "I  bore  all  this  for  thee."  And 
she  thought  of  the  words  of  the  Apostle — "  He  died  for 
us."  And  as  she  walked  along,  she  remembered  what 
Jesus  said — "Blessed  are  ye  when  men  shall  hate  you, 
and  when  they  shall  separate  you  from  their  company, 
and  shall  reproach  you,  and  shall  cast  out  your  name 
as  evil,  for  the  Son  of  man's  sake.  Rejoice  ye  in  that 
day,  and  leap  for  joy — for  your  reward  is  great  in 
Heaven."  "And  every  one  that  hath  forsaken  houses, 


270  THEOUOSIA    ERNEST. 

or  brethren  or  sisters,  or  father  or  mother,  or  wife  or 
children,  or  lands,  for  my  name's  sake,  shall  receive  an 
hundred  fold,  and  shall  inherit  everlasting  life." 

So  fully  was  her  mind  occupied  with  this  delightful 
thought,  that  she  felt  no  further  anxiety,  and  not  the 
slightest  fear.  And  as  she  was  lifted  from  the  liquid 
grave,  she  could  not  help  exclaiming  in  an  audible  voice, 
"Jesus,  I  thank  ihee  !"  And  then,  as  they  turned  to 
ward  the  shore,  such  a  gleam  of  heavenly  peace  and 
holy  joy  illumined  her  beautiful  face,  that  several  of  the 
brethren  and  sisters  who  stood  upon  the  bank,  simulta 
neously  exclaimed,  "Blessed  be  the  name  of  the  Lord!" 

"  Yes,"  she  exclaimed,  "  blessed  be  his  holy  name !" 
And  suddenly  she  stopped,  and  with  a  voice  which  was 
naturally  sweet  and  powerful,  and  had  been  carefully 
cultivated,  and  now  was  rendered  deeper  and  more  ex 
pressive  by  intensity  of  feeling,  she  commenced  singing : 

"Jesus,  I  my  cross  have  taken, 
All  to  leave  and  follow  thee  ; 
Friendless,  poor,  despised,  forsaken, 
Thou  from  hence  my  all  shall  bo. 
And  whilst  thou  shalt  smile  upon  me, 
God  of  wisdom,  love,  and  might, 
Foes  ina"y  hate,  and  friends  disown  me, 
Show  thy  face,  and  all  is  bright. 
Man  may  trouble  and  distress  me, 
'Twill  but  drive  me  to  thy  breast ; 
Life  with  trials  hard  may  press  me, 
Heaven  will  bring  me  sweeter  rest. 
Oh,  'tis  not  in  grief  to  harm  me, 
While  thy  love  is  left  to  me  ! 
Oh,  'twere  not  in  joy  to  charm  me, 
Were  that  joy  unmixed  with  thee  !" 

The  effect  upon  the  audience  was  electrical.  Tears 
streamed  from  every  face;  many  sobbed  and  wept  aloud. 
Among  these  was  a  voice  which  instantly  fixed  her 


THE   DAY   AFTER    THE    SEVENTH    NIGHT.  273 

attention.  She  looked  up  among  the  assembly,  and  was 
surprised  to  see  that  it  had  increased  since  she  started 
into  the  water  to  a  great  multitude.  The  congregations 
from  several  other  churches  had  hurried  to  the  river  as 
soon  as  they  were  dismissed  from  their  several  places 
of  meeting.  Foremost  among  the  crowd  stood  Uncle 
Jones,  with  her  mother  on  one  side,  and  Edwin  on  the 
other.  It  was  she  that  she  heard ;  for  when  she  saw  her 
daughter  standing  thus  alone,  and  heard  her  sing, 
"  Friendless,  poor,  despised,  forsaken,"  she  lifted  up 
her  voice  arid  wept.  Nor  did  she  weep  alone.  Strong 
men,  who  were  not  professors  of  religion,  and  who  were 
thought  to  care  for  none  of  these  things,  stood  and 
gazed  at  that  sweet  face,  all  radiant  with  the  love  of 
Jesus,  as  though  it  had  been  the  face  of  an  angel ;  and 
as  they  looked,  the  big  tears  chased  each  other  down 
their  unconscious  cheeks.  The  brethren  and  sisters  of 
the  church  wept ;  old  men  and  mothers  in  Israel  wept. 
Young  men  and  maidens  wept.  But  Theodosia  heard 
none,  saw  none  but  her  mother.  As  she  came  to  the 
water's  edge,  that  mother  rushed  down  to  meet  her,  and 
clasped  her  closely  to  her  heart.  The  brothers  and  sis 
ters  of  the  church,  who  were  approaching  to  give  her 
the  hand  of  fellowship,  stood  respectfully  aside. 

"Oh,  mother,  do  you — can  you  forgive  me ?" 

"  Don't  talk  so,  my  child ;  I  have  never  blamed  you. 
You  have  done  your  duty;  you  have  done  right.  You 
have  obeyed  your  Saviour — he  will  bless  you.  I  wish  I 
had  the  courage  to  follow  your  example." 

"  God  bless  you  for  those  words,  my  mother !  Oh ! 
how  full  of  joy  my  heart  is.  He  maketh  my  cup  run 
over.  Surely  goodness  and  mercy  hath  followed  me  all 
the  days  of  my  life.  Uncle,  dear  uncle,  it  is  blessed  to 
obey.  Can't  you  give  up  all  for  Christ  ? 

"  Mr.  Courtney,  I  thank  you  for  your  teachings.   3STow 


274  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

t 

I  know  I  am  baptized.  I  have  now  done  just  what  Jesus 
commanded.  I  have  left  all  and  followed  him ;  and, 
blessed  be  his  name,  I  have  already  that  peace  which 
passeth  understanding."  And  as  the  brethren  and  sis 
ters  came  crowding  round  to  welcome  her  into  the  com 
munion  of  the  church  on  earth,  shebang  again  with  that 
sweet,  soul-thrilling  voice,  to  wj|jch  the  intensity  of  her 
feelings  and  utter  self-abandonment  gave  tenfold  power : 

"  Children  of  the  living  God, 

Take  the  stranger  to  your  heart — 
Let  me  dwell  in  your  abode, 
Never  more  from  you  to  part. 

"  Can  you  love  me  ?    Will  you  help  me  ? 

Help  me  on  my  way  to  God — 
Can  you  love  me  ?     Will  you  help  me  ? 
Help  me  keep  his  precious  word." 

While  singing,  she  continued  to  give  her  hand  to  one 
after  another  as  they  came  up ;  and  as  she  finished  the 
strain,  a  sister  standing  by  sang : 

"Yes,  come,  thou  blessed  of  the  Lord, 

No  stranger  art  thou  now — 
We  welcome  thee  with  warm  accord, 
Our  friend  and  sister  thou. 

"The  hand  of  fellowship,  the  heart 

Of  love  we  offer  thee  ; 
Leaving  the  world,  thou  dost  but  part 
With  lies  and  vanity. 

"  In  weal  or  woe,  in  joy  or  care, 
^  Thy  portion  shall  be  ours  ; 

Christians  their  mutual  burdens  bear, 
They  lend  their  mutual  powers." 

The  minister  pronounced  the  benediction,  and  they  led 
her  up  the  bank,  and  then  each  went  his  way  rejoicing. 


THE    DAY    AFTER    THE    SEVENTH    NIGHT.  275 

Uncle  Jones  went  home  and  dined  with  Mrs.  Ernest. 
When  Theodosia  had  changed  her  dress,  and  returned. 
to  the  parlor,  he  went  up  and  took  her  hand  as  she 
came  in,  saying,  '*  My  dear  Theo.,  why  did  you  not  tell 
me  you  were  going  to  be  baptized  to-day?  I  would 
have  gladly  gone  with  you  to  your  meeting." 

"Then  you  did  not  mean  to  cast  me  off?"  said  she, 
her  eyes  filling  with  tears.  "  I  thought  you  too  had 
forsaken  me.  I  sent  you  a  line  last  night,  entreating 
you  to  be  present — but  you  did  not  come  1" 

"  I  did  not  get  it,  nor  did  I  know,  till  after  church, 
that  you  intended  any  such  thing  to-day.  I  missed  you 
from  your  accustomed  seat,  and  inquired  of  your  mother 
as  soon  as  the  meeting  was  dismissed,  and  learned  that 
you  had  gone  to  be  baptized.  We  hurried  to  the  river, 
and  fortunately  were  just  in  time  to  see  you  go  into  the 
water." 

"  Oh,  uncle  !  I  am  so  glad.     I  thought  that  you,  and 
mother,  and  all  who  loved  me,  so  disapproved  of  what 
I  was  about  to  do,  that  you  would  none  of  you  be 
present.     God  is  already  giving  me  back  my,  friends." 
*  *  *  * 

There  was  preaching  again  at  three  o'clock, — and  as 
the  school-house  could  not  hold  half  the  people,  it  was 
thought  best  to  adjourn  to  the  court  house.  At  night 
the  court  house  was  filled  to  overflowing,  and  the 
preacher  requested  those  who  were  concerned  about 
their  souls'  salvation,  and  desired  the  prayers  of  the 
people  of  God,  to  take  a  seat  in  front  of  the  congrega 
tion.  More  than  a  dozen  came  forward  at  once,  among 
whom  were  several  who  had  been  a  long  time  professors 
of  religion,  and  some  were  members  of  the  Baptist 
Church.  On  inquiry,  these  professors  stated  that  they 
had  been  trying  to  get  to  heaven,  and  with  this  object  in 
view  had  endeavored  to  lead  in  some  degree  religious 


276  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

* 

lives.  They  had  gone  to  church,  partaken  of  the  Sup 
per,  sometimes  prayed,  or  tried  to  pray — but  took  no 
pleasure  in  religion  ;  and  from  what  they  heard  in  the 
morning,  were  convinced  that  whatever  obedience  they 
had  shown  was  the  obedience  of  fear,  or  hope,  and  not 
of  love.  For  if  they  could  have  got  to  heaven  without 
religion,  they  would  have  willingly  dispensed  with  it. 
They  had  abstained  from  open  sin,  because  they  knew 
that  those  who  lived  in  open  sin  would  surely  be  lost. 
They  had  endeavored  to  perform  certain  duties,  because 
they  considered  the  attempt  (at  least)  to  do  such  duties 
to  be  essential  to  salvation.  What  they  did  not  think 
thus  essential,  had  little  weight  upon  their  conscience. 
Now  they  saw  that  they  had  been  fearfully  deceived, 
and  desired  to  seek  for  the  obedience  of  love — not  the 
obedience  which  seeks  to  merit  heaven,  and  continually 
looks  for  its  reward — but  that  which  receives  all  mercies 
as  the  free  gift  of  God  in  Christ,  and  yet  longs,  and 
strives,  and  prays  to  do  all  his  commandments,  because 
it  thus  and  only  thus  can  exercise,  exhibit,  and  gratify 
the  love  of  God  that  Jills  the  heart. 

The  minister  did  .  not  try  to  give  them  back  their 
hopes,  and  make  them  think  that  they  had  no  occasion 
for  alarm.  He  knew  full  well  that  Christ  will  say  to 
'many,  "  Depart  from  me,  I  never  knew  you,"  who  here 
on  earth  called  him  Lord,  Lord,  and  professed  to  be  his 
disciples.  He  greatly  feared  that  there  were  thousands 
and  thousands  who  had  a  respectable  standing  in  the 
church  of  Christ,  who  never  asked,  with  the  converted 
Paul,  "  Lord,  what  wilt  THOU  have  me  to  do  ?"  But  only 
with  the  yet  unconverted  jailer,  "  What  must  I  do  to  be 
saved  ?"  This  last  he  knew  was  most  important,  but  it 
was  not  .enough.  It  was  a  needful  and  common  pre 
paration  for  religion,  but  it  was  not  religion.  It  might 
lead  to  seek  for  faith,  but  it  is  not  the  result  of  saving 


THE    DAY    AFTER    THE    SEVENTH    NIGHT.  277 

faith,  for  THAT  works  by  LOVE — and  through  LOVE 
purifies  the  heart — and  through  LOVE  brings  forth  good 
works  in  the  life.  He  was  convinced,  moreover,  that 
it  was  infinitely  better  for  many  of  God's  true  children 
to  suffer  temporary  anxiety  and  alarm,  than  for  one 
false  professor  to  be  confirmed  in  his  delusive  hope. 

It  was  determined  at  the  close  of  this  meeting,  to 
appoint  one  for  Monday  night,  and  probabty  continue  to 
have  preaching  every  night  during  the  week.  Whether 
they  did  so,  and  what  was  the  result,  we  will  learn  here 
after.  It  is  time  for  us  now  to  return  to  our  study, 
which  at  the  close  of  the  Seventh  Night  (the  attentive 
reader  will  perhaps  remember)  was  about  the  Scriptural 
authority,  or  rather  about  the  utter  want  of  all  Scrip 
tural  authority  for  infant  baptism. 
24 


THE  EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY. 

NEW   CHARACTERS  AND   NEW  ARGUMENTS. 
INFANT  BAPTISM  IS  VIRTUALLY  FORBIDDEN 

IN   THE   WORD   OP   GOD. 

THE    COVENANT    OF    CIRCUMCISION 


FOR  INFANT   BAPTISM. 


EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY. 

)HE  Reverend  Mr.  Johnson  had,  early  in  the 
preceding  week,  commenced  the  preparation  of 
a  discourse,  which  was  intended,  at  once  and 
forever,  to  put  an  end  to  any  further  defection 
among  his  flock.  He  was  a  fine  declaimer,  and 
was,  in  the  pulpit,  accustomed  at  times  to  deal 
in  the  bitterest  denunciation  of  those  who  differed  from 
his  party  in  their  religious  opinions  and  practices.  He 
had  more  power  of  sarcasm  than  of  reason,  and  hence, 
found  it  easier  to  denounce  the  opinions  of  others  than 
to  defend  his  own.  His  discourse  upon  the  Sabbath 
through  which  we  have  just  passed,  was  that  which  we 
saw  him  preparing  at  the  commencement  of  our  Third 
Night's  Study.  It  was  designed  to  be  a  scornful,  bitter, 
and  withering  denunciation  of  all  those  weak  minded 
and  credulous,  or  fanatical,  persons  who,  in  this  day  of 
light,  and  surrounded  by  such  advantages  as  were  pos 
sessed  by  his  congregation,  could  be  by  any  means  in 
duced  to  wander  away  from  the  sacred  pale  of  Presby- 
terianism.  We  will  not  trouble  the  reader  with  even  a 
synopsis  of  this  remarkable  sermon.  It  had  been  pre 
pared  with  evident  labor  and  care,  and  it  was  delivered 
with  great  energy  and  feeling.  Under  other  circum 
stances,  it  might  have  produced  the  effect  that  its  author 
intended,  which  was  to  deter  any  other  persons  from 
any  investigation  of  the  subject  of  baptism,  or  indeed 
any  other  religious  subject,  except  for  the  purpose  of 
confirming  their  faith  in  the  doctrines  in  which  they 
had  been  instructed  from  their  childhood,  Ta  have 

(281) 


282  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

fully  answered  his  purpose,  he  should  have  preached  it 
at  least  a  week  sooner.  Now,  it  was  universally  under 
stood  to  be  expressly  aimed  at  certain  individuals,  whom 
it  was  well  known  had  been  investigating  the  subject  of 
baptism,  and  might  possibly  be  considering  the  pro 
priety,  or  rather  the  conscientious  necessity,  of  a  change 
of  church  relationship.  Many  a  glance  was  turned, 
during  its  delivery,  to  the  seats  occupied  by  Uncle 
Jones  and  Mrs.  Ernest.  The  latter  felt  that  it  was  an 
uncalled-for  abuse  of  her  absent  child,  whom  she  knew 
had  been  impelled  to  the  course  she  had  taken  by  the 
sternest  and  most  distressing  conviction  of  indispensa 
ble  duty  ;  and  though  she  wept  as  she  listened,  her  tears 
were  tears  of  mortification  and  anger.  That  sermon 
did  more  to  destroy  her  faith  in  Pastor  Johnson,  and 
her  affection  for  her  church,  than  all  the  anti-Presby 
terian  arguments  she  had  ever  heard.  So  also  it  did 
more  to  fix  the  attention  of  the  congregation  upon  the 
work  which  was  going  on  among  the  Baptists,  than  any 
thing  which  they  could  have  done  or  said.  Many  were 
willing  to  go  and  learn  at  the  Baptist  meetings  what 
those  terrible  and  seducing  doctrines  were  which  could  so 
excite  the  ire  of  their  venerable  shepherd. 

After  preaching,  he  gave  notice  that  a  meeting  of  the 
Session  would  be  held  at  three  o'clock,  at  the  parsonage, 
to  attend  to  some  business  of  importance,  and  gave  a 
special  invitation  to  the  resident  ministers  (by  whom 
he  meant  the  President  of  the  college,  and  those  of 
the  professors  who  were  also  preachers)  to  meet  with 
them. 

Neither  Uncle  Jones  nor  Mrs.  Ernest  said  any  thing 
of  this  ominous  announcement  to  Theodosia,  for  both 
had  some  indistinct  conception  that  the  business  to  be 
done  related  to  her  case. 

Uncle  Jones,  as  one  of  the  ruling  elders,  and  a  mem- 


EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  283 

ber  of  the  Session,  felt  it  his  duty  to  be  present.  He 
was  a  little  after  the  time,  however ;  and  when  he  ar 
rived,  he  found  that  they  had  already  entered  upon  the 
discussion  of  the  business  on  hand.  There  was  an 
awkward  pause  in  the  conversation  when  he  came  in, 
until  the  pastor  remarked  that  the  matter  which  they 
were  considering  might  be  an  unpleasant  one  to  him ; 
and  if  so,  there  would  be  a  quorum  present  should  he 
think  best  to  retire. 

"  If  your  business  relates  in  any  way  to  my  niece," 
said  the  Professor,  "  I  prefer  to  witness  all  you  have  to 
say  or  do." 

"We  were  indeed  speaking  of  her,"  said  the  pastor; 
and  though  it  gives  me  pain  to  say  it,  I  have  felt  it  my 
duty,  also,  to  make  some  mention  of  your  own  case,  as 
of  one  aiding  and  abetting  error  in  another,  if  not  your 
self  entertaining  opinions  which  are  inconsistent  with 
your  obligations  as  a  ruling  elder  in  the  church." 

There  was  a  slight  flush  passed  over  the  manly  face  of 
Professor  Jones,  as  the  pastor,  with  evident  reluctance, 
thus  gave  him  to  understand  that  one  object  of  the  meet 
ing  was  to  inflict  the  discipline  of  the  church  upon  his 
recreant  niece,  and  another  to  take  steps  to  depose  him 
from  the  eldership ;  but  he  -answered  very  calmly : 

"  Don't  let  my  coming  in  interrupt  your  order  of  busi 
ness.  You  will  take  up  one  case  at  a  time.  I  will  be 
present  when  you  take  action  on  that  of  Miss  Ernest. 
When  you  are  ready  to  consider  mine,  I  will  retire." 

"  We  understand,"  said  the  pastor,  "that  Miss  Ernest, 
while  her  name  was  still  standing  as  a  member  upon  our 
record,  has  gone  to  a  Baptist  society,  solicited- immer 
sion,  and  has  actually  been  immersed  by  a  Baptist 
preacher.  By  this  act,  she  has  undoubtedly  severed  all 
connection  with  our  church,  and  must  of  necessity  be 
excluded  from  our  communion.  The  only  question  is 


284  THEODO8IA    ERNEST.   ' 

whether  we  are  bound  to  make  the  usual  citation  to 
appear  and  answer  to  the  charge." 

"  There  can  be  no  doubt,"  replied  Professor  Jones, 
'•that  we  are  bound,  according  to  our  rules,  to  give  the 
ten  days'  notice  of  citation,  with  a  copy  of  the  charges 
preferred  against  the  accused.  But,  in  this  case,  1  will 
take  it  upon  myself  to  answer  for  my  niece,  that  she 
would  prefer  the  quickest  and  the  simplest  mode  of  ex 
cision.-  She  has  no  wish  for  farther  connection  with  us. 
She  regards  herself  as  already  separated  from  our  com 
munion,  and  will  probably  make  no  answer  or  defence 
to  any  charges  not  affecting  her  moral  or  Christian  char 
acter,  which  you  may  think  fit  to  bring  against  her." 

After  some  consultation,  it  was  decided  that  it  would 
not  be  proper  to  dispense  with  any  of  the  stipulated 
formalities  of  the  rules  of  discipline ;  and  consequently, 
all  that  could  at  this  time  be  done,  was  to  take  order 
that  a  copy  of  the  charges  preferred  against  her,  the 
names  of  the  witnesses  by  whom  they  were  to  be  estab 
lished,  and  a  citation  to  appear  and  answer  ten  days 
thereafter,  should  be  issued  and  served  upon  Miss  Theo- 
dosia  Ernest.  A  committee,  consisting  of  the  pastor 
and  clerk,  was  appointed  to  carry  these  measures  into 
execution. 

"  You  are  now  done  with  Miss  Ernest's  case  for  the 
present,"  said  Professor  Jones,  "and  I  will  retire,  that 
you  may  feel  perfect  freedom  in  speaking  about  mine." 

"  Oh,  no,"  said  the  President  of  the  College,  the  Rev. 
T.  J.  McNought,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  who  was  present  on  the 
invitation  of  the  pastor.  "  We  were  merely  speaking  of 
what  it  might  be  necessary  to  do  in  a  case  such  as  our 
brother  Johnson  conceived  yours  would  eventually  be 
come,  should  yoii  continue  to  progress  in  the  direction 
in  which  he  imagines  you  have  started." 

"  Brethi'en,"  replied  the  Professor,  "  let  us  not  misun- 


EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  285 

derstand  each  other.  You  know  me  well.  I  am  a  plain, 
blunt  man.  I  will  have  no  concealment  on  this  subject. 
My  niece  has  carefully  studied  the  Word  of  God,  which 
our  standards  declare  '  is  THE  ONLY  RULE  OF  FAITH  AND 
PRACTICE.'  I  assisted  her  in  the  investigation.  We 
both  came  to  the  conclusion,  as  I  think  every  right- 
minded  man  must  do,  that  the  baptism  commanded  and 
spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament,  is  neither  sprinkling 
nor  pouring,  but  dipping,  or,  as  it  is  commonly  called, 
immersion.  This  I  now  firmly  believe.  This  I  am 
ready  to  prove  from  the  Holy  Word  to  you  or  any  one 
else  who  feels  inclined  to  inquire  into  the  matter.  I  will 
prove  it  by  the  very  meaning  of  the  word  baptize.  I  will 
prove  it  by  a  reference  to  the  places  selected  for  baptism. 
By  the  going  down  into  the  water,  and  the  coming  up  out 
of  the  water,  said  to  have  preceded  and  followed  baptism. 
I  will  prove  it  by  the  nature  of  the  allusions  to  baptism, 
as  a  bath,  as  a  planting,  and  a  burial.  I  will  prove  by 
the  testimony  of  the  Fathers,  that  it  was  for  centuries 
the  only  baptism,  and  by  the  testimony  of  our  own  ablest 
writers — such  as  Wall  and  Stuart,  Neander  and  Colman 
— that  it  continued  to  be  the  common  baptism  for  more 
than  thirteen  hundred  years,  even  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  and  the  churches  derived  from  her,  and  still  con 
tinues  the  only  baptism  in  the  Eastern  churches.  I  will 
show  you  the  very  time  and  place  when  and  where  the 
change  was  made  by  authority  of  the  Pope  and  his  coun 
cil.  I  will  show  you  when  and  how  the  new  practice 
was  introduced  into  England  and  into  this  country.  I 
will  show  you  this,  not  in  Baptist  books.  These  facts 
do  not  rest  on  Baptist  testimony,  but  on  that  of  our  oivn 
historians  and  divines.  You  know,  President  McNought, 
that  what  I  say  is  true ;  and  Mr.  Johnson  knows  it,  too, 
or  might  know  it,  if  he  would  look  at  the  evidence  in  his 
possession.  Now,  if  to  believe  these  things  on  such  testi- 


286  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

** 

mony  makes  one  a  heretic,  I  wish  you  distinctly  to  un 
derstand  that  I  am  decidedly  heretical.  Though  I  assure 
you,  on  my  honor  as  a  iraii  and  a  Christian,  that  I  am 
ready  and  willing  to  see  and  to  acknowledge  my  error, 
if  any  one  of  you  can  point  it  out.  On  the  subject  of 
infant  baptism,  I  am  not  fully  convinced.  I  am  satis 
fied,  as  any  one  can  easily  be  who  will  make  a  critical 
examination  of  the  Scriptures,  with  this  object  in  view, 
that  there  is  neither  express  commandment  nor  example 
to  justify  the  baptism  of  any  but  believers,  to  be  found  in 
the  Word  of  God.  Pastor  Johnson  and  myself  have 
together  searched  diligently  to  find  either  the  precept  or 
the  example,  and  he,  as  well  as  I,  was  compelled  to 
grant  that  it  is  not  th-ere.  But  Woods  and  Stuart,  and 
others  of  our  most  eminent  divines,  while  they  have 
granted  this,  still  contend  for  infant  baptism.  There 
must,  therefore,  be  some  other  Scriptural  ground  on 
which  it  rests.  I  will  be  thankful  to  any  one  among 
you  who  can  point  it  out." 

There  was  a  moment's  pause.  The  Session  were  not 
prepared  for  such  a  confession  of  his  faith  and  no  one 
knew  what  to  reply. 

"  I  will  now  retire,"  continued  he.  "  You  have  the 
case  before  you,  and  can  adopt  such  measures  as  you 
may  think  best." 

After  he  had  gone,  "  I  told  you,"  said  the  pastor, 
"  that  he  had  become  a  Baptist  in  all  but  the  name.  I 
don't  believe  his  niece  would  ever  have  left  us,  but  for 
his  encouragement  and  that  of  her  mother." 

"They  must  have  felt,"  said  Colonel  White  (the  lay 
member  whom  we  have  had  occasion  to  mention  once 
before),  "  they  must  have  felt  to-day,  if  they  had  any 
feeling  left.  I  would  not  have  been  in  their  places  for 
the  best  farm  in  the  country.  It  made  my  very  ears 
tingle  to  hear  how  yon  belabored  them.  But  it  don't 


EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY. 

seem  to  have  done  him  the  slightest  good.  I  doubt  if 
there  is  but  one  argument  that  can  be  brought  to  bear 
upon  him,  and  that  is  the  same  that  so  easily  convinced 
my  young  friend,  Esquire  Percy." 

"  What  is  that  ?"  inquired  President  McNought. 

"  It  is  the  argumentum  ad  pocketum.  I  have  heard 
from  doctors  that  the  pocket  nerve  was  the  most  sensi 
tive  nerve  in  the  whole  body.  Convince  a  man  that  his 
bread  and  meat  depend  upon  a  correct  belief,  and  he  is 
very  apt  to  believe  correctly.  This  may  not  be  always 
true  of  a  woman,  but  I  have  never  known  this  argument, 
when  prudently  and  skillfully  presented,  to  fail  of  con 
vincing  a  man.  You  may  appoint  a  committee  to  confer 
with  brother  Jones,  and  endeavor  to  convince  him  of  his 
errors.  It  is,  perhaps,  essential  that  you  should ;  for 
this  will  give  him  a  pleasant  and  honorable  opportunity 
of  recalling  his  heretical  expressions,  or  at  least,  of  ex 
plaining  them  away.  But  before  you  do  this,  let  me 
intimate  to  him  that  the  Board  of  Trustees  (of  whom 
you  know  I  have  the  honor  to  be  the  President)  will 
greatly  dislike  to  dispense  with  his  valuable  services  in 
the  college — bit^,  that  it  is  a  Presbyterian  college ;  and 
however  much  they  may  esteem  him  as  a  man,  and  value 
him  as  a  teacher,  yet  we  can  retain  no  one  whose  ortho 
doxy  is  openly  doubtful.  Believe  me,  brethren,  you  will 
then  find  him  much  more  pliable,  and  ready  to  be  con 
vinced  that  he  is  wrong." 

"  You  may  try  it,"  said  the  pastor,  "but  I  don't  be 
lieve  you  will  succeed.  I  know  him  better  than  you  do. 
He  has  always  been  one  of  the  most  conscientious  men  I 
ever  knew.  He  will  act  as  he  believes." 

"  No  doubt  of  it,"  rejoined  the  speculating  elder.  "  He 
will  act  as  he  believes ;  but  he  will  believe  that  it  is 
wrong  to  make  any  change  in  his  church  relations,  or  to 
meddle  any  farther  with  the  subject  of  baptism,  unless 


288  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

» 

it  is  in  the  defence  of  our  opinions.  Professor  Jones  is 
a  poor  man.  It  is  not  generally  known,  but  it  is  true, 
that  he  has  for  several  years  greatly  assisted  in  the 
support  of  Mrs.  Ernest  and  her  children.  He  has  thus 
lived  fully  up  to  his  income.  He  has  now  a  growing 
family.  He  expects  to  provide  for  them  out  of  his 
yearly  salary.  It  is  all  he  can  do.  Take  away  this ; 
turn  him  out  of  the  house  he  now  occupies,  rent  free ; 
let  him  feel  that  he  stands  suddenly  not  only  destitute, 
but  without  employment  and  friendship  —  and  he  is 
something  more  or  less  than  man,  if  he  can  look  upon 
his  helpless  wife  and  children  and  refuse  to  hear  to 
reason." 

The  Session  appointed  the  pastor  and  the  Rev.  T.  J. 
McNought,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  as  a  committee  to  see  and 
labor  with  their  brother  Jones,  and  endeavor  to  convince 
him  of  his  errors,  especially  in  regard  to  infant  baptism, 
as  on  this  point  he  seemed  likely  to  be  most  accessible, 
and  then  adjourned  to  meet  again  at  the  call  of  the 
pastor. 

Colonel  White  considered  himself  a  committee  of  one  to 
make  matters  easy  for  the  committee  of  two.  Early  in 
the  day,  on  Monday,  he  called  at  the  house  of  Professor 
Jones,  at  an  hour  when  he  knew  he  was  absent,  for  he 
felt  the  necessity  of  all  the  assistance  he  could  obtain, 
and  relied  upon  Mrs.  Jones  and  the  children  as  his  most 
efficient  allies. 

"  Is  the  Professor  in  this  morning,  Mrs.  Jones  ?" 

"  Not  just  now,  sir.  He  has  a  recitation  at  this  time. 
He  will  be  in  in  half  an  hour.  Take  a  seat,  colonel." 

"  No,  I  thank  you,  madam.  I  called  to  see  Professor 
Jones  about  some  important  business.  I  will  meet  him 
at  the  college.  There  is  a  matter  afloat,  which  I  fear  is 
going  greatly  to  injure  him  in  his  future  prospects  ,  and 
I  merely  called,  as  a  friend,  to  suggest  some  plan  by 


EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  289 

which  the  ruin  —  for  ruin  I  fear  it  will  be  —  maj  be 
averted." 

"Why,  Colonel  White,  what  can  you  mean?"  asked 
the  lady,  in  just  that  tone  of  distress  a'nd  alarm  which 
he  desired  to  hear. 

"  Oh,"  said  he,  taking  a  chair,  and  sitting  down  where 
he  could  look  right  into  her  face,  "  it  may  be  nothing 
after  all.  Indeed,  I  don't  really  belieVe  it  will  amount 
to  any  thing ;  but  still,  there  is,  I  fear,  some  danger 
that  he  will  lose  his  situation  in  the  college.  There  is 
a  rumor  abroad,  you  know,  that  he  is  about  to  become  a 
Baptist — or,  at  least,  that  he  has  a  little  tendency  that 
way ;  and  there  are  some  of  ^e  trustees  who  are  dis 
posed  to  be  very  particular  about  such  things — too  much 
so,  as  I  may  say.  Now,  for  myself,  I  am  disposed  to  be 
liberal ;  and  I  shall  do  what  I  can — in  fact,  I  may  say  I 
have  done  what  I  could — to  influence  their  action.  You 
know  I  have  always  been  in  favor  of  Professor  Jones. 
I  know  him  to  be  a  worthy  man,  and  a  very  superior 
instructor ;  and  I  know  he  has  the  confidence — the  im 
plicit  confidence,  as  I  may  say — of  the  whole  com 
munity.  And  what  if  he  does  entertain  sftme  heterodox 
opinions  about  a  matter  not  essential  to  salvation? 
says  I.  Why,  he  is  a  good  man,  and  that  is  enough  for 
me.  But  you  know,  Mrs.  Jones,  people  don't  all  think 
alike ;  and  I  am  dubious  about  what  the  trustees  may 
take  a  fancy  to  do.  But  I  can't  stay,"  continued  he, 
rising,  and  going  toward  the  door.  "  I  could  not  do 
less,  as  a  neighbor,  than  just  to  call  and  tell  you  my 
fears.  I  will  try  to  meet  Professor  Jones  himself,  and 
consult  with  him  about  what  is  to  be  done." 

He  sallied  out,  and  about  the  time  that  Professor 
Jones  was  starting  for  home,  placed  himself  in  the  way 
as  he  came  from  the  college  building. 

"I  am  sorry,"  said  he,  "brother  Jones,  that  our 
25 


290  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

f 

pastor  used  such  expressions  as  he  did  yesterday.  I 
don't  wonder  that  you  became  excited ;  I  could  not  have 
borne  it  half  as  well  as  you  did.  But  I  am  afraid  you 
dropped  some  expressions  that  will  injure  you  with  the 
trustees.  Some  of  them  have  been  talking  with  me  this 
morning.  They  say  that  you  as  good  as  declared  your 
self  a  Baptist,  and  they  don't  see  what  further  use  a 
Presbyterian  college  has  for  your  services.  But  I  said, 
wait  a  while.  Jones  is  a  man  of  impulse.  His  feelings 
were  touched  yesterday,  ,  and  he  said  more  than  he 
intended.  He  is  as  much  a  Presbyterian  as  I  am.  He 
will  be  all  right  in  a  week.  I  took  the  liberty  to  say 
thus  much  for  you.  I  have  always  been  your  friend, 
and  I  mean  to  stand  by  you  through  thick  and  thin,  so 
long  as  I  can  be  of  any  service  to  you.  I  dou't  advise 
you  to  conceal  or  falsify  your  opinions.  I  know  you 
are  incapable  of  doing  that ;  but  I  merely  suggest, 
since  so  much  depends  upon  it — your  own  living,  as  I 
may  say — that  you  will  be  a  little  more  careful  and 
prudent  in  your  expression.  Think  what  you  please ; 
but  you  are  not  obliged  always  to  tell  all  you  think. 
You  understand  ?  I  felt  bound  to  give  you  this  little 
hint.  There  may  be  more  in  it  than  you  are  aware  of." 
Such  thoughts  as  these  had  already  intruded  into  the 
Professor's  mind.  His  wife  had  several  times  sug 
gested  something  of  the  kind.  Till  now,  however,  the 
danger  had  seemed  distant  and  undefined.  It  was 
indeed  a  dark  cloud,  but  it  hung  low  on  the  far-off 
horizon ;  now,  it  lowered  above  his  very  head,  and 
covered  all  the  heavens  with  its  blackness.  Nothing 
but  utter  ruin  stared  him  in  the  face.  He  walked  along 
home,  almost  blinded  by  the  rush  of  fearful  thoughts. 
He  sat  down  in  silence  to  his  dinner.  His  wife  seemed 
even  sadder  and  more  distressed  than  he  was.  Scarcely 
had  he  begun  to  eat,  when  she  inquired: 


EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  291 

"  Have  you  seen  Colonel  White  this  morning?  he  was 
here  looking  for  you.  I  told  you  how  it  would  be,  when 
you  first  begun  to  meddle  with  this  subject  of  baptism ; 
but  you  could  not  be  satisfied.  And  we  are  now  to 
lose  our  pleasant  home  and  all  our  means  of  support, 
and  be  turned  out  destitute  upon  the  world,  just  because 
you  would  not  listen  to  your  wife,  and  let  well  enough 
alone." 

"  Oh,  not  so  bad  as  that  I  hope,  my  dear." 

"  Well,  I  don't  know  how  any  thing  could  be  worse. 
Colonel  White  says  the  trustees  are  going  to  declare  your 
professorship  vacant,  or  something  like  it,  because  you 
have  turned  Baptist.  And  of  course  we  must  leave  this 
house,  which  you  know  belongs  to  the  college,  though 
we  have  fitted  it  up  for  ourselves  just  as  though  it  be 
longed  to  us.  And  you  know  you  have  never  saved  a 
dollar  of  your  salary,  though  I  am  sure  I  never  spent 
the  half  of  it.  I  never  could  tell  what  became  of  it ; 
and  how  we  are  going  to  live,  I  should  like  very  much 
to  know.  If  you  depend  on  those  ignorant  and  stingy 
Baptists  for  a  support,  any  body  can  see  we  must  come 
to  starvation.  They  could  not  do  much  if  they  would, 
and  they  would  not  do  any  thing  if  they  could.  I'm 
sure  I  hate  the  day  they  came  here,  to  disturb  the  peace 
and  quiet  of  our  town.  They  have  brought  nothing  but 
trouble  to  me." 

"  But,  my  dear  wife,  things  may  not  turn  out  so  badly 
after  all.  I  did  indeed  see  Colonel  White,  and  he  told 
me,  as  a  friend,  that  some  of  the  trustees  are  a  little 
piqued  at  my  entertaining  opinions  on  this  subject  dif 
ferent  from  their  own ;  but  with  his  influence  exerted  in 
my  favor,  I  hardly  think  I  shall  lose  my  situation,  at 
least  till  I  can  make  other  arrangements." 

"  His  influence  !  Why,  he  is  the  very  soul  and  body 
of  the  whole  business.  You  don't  know  that  man  as  I 


292  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

* 

do.  He  can't  impose  on  me  with  his  soft  words.  I 
could  see  the  evil  intention  in  his  eye  while  he  was  talk 
ing  about  it  to  me.  As  soon  as  he  saw  how  much  it 
distressed  me,  I  could  see  it  did  his  very  heart  good. 
He  is  the  very  man  that  is  working  your  ruin.  And  all 
I  wish  is  that  you  had  not  yourself  placed  in  his  hand 
the  club  to  beat  your  brains  out  with.  If  I  were  you, 
I  would  go  to  the  trustees  myself,  and  set  the  matter 
right." 

"  What  can  I  say  to  them,  my  dear  ?" 

"  Say  ?  Why  tell  them,  that  though  it  is  true  that 
you  have  given  a  little  time  to  the  investigation  of  this 
subject,  you  are  as  good  a  Presbyterian  as  any  of  them, 
and  have  no  more  thought  of  leaving  the  Presbyterian 
Church  than  President  McNought  himself.  I  know  you 
love  our  church.  I  have  often  heard  you  say  so.  It  was 
good  enough  for  your  father  and  mother  to  live  in  and 
die  in.  It  was  good  enough  for  Timothy  Dwight  and 
Jonathan  Edwards  to  live  and  die  in.  It  is  good  enough 
for  Pastor  Johnson,  President  McXought,  your  brother 
professors,  and  all  the  most  intelligent,  and  influential, 
and  wealthy  portion  of  the  town,  and  /  can't  see  why  it 
is  not  good  enough  for  you." 

"  If  I  were  only  sure  it  is  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ, 
that  would  be  all  I  could  ask,"  he  replied;  "but  I  must 
consider  further  of  this  matter." 

"  Yes,  I  see  how  it  will  be ;  you  will  consider  and 
consider  till  the  mischief  is  done  and  we  are  turned  out 
of  house  and  home.  But  I  know  it's  of  no  use  to  talk 
to  you.  You  will  just  go  on  your  own  way.  I  only 
wish  you  may  never  be  as  sorry  as  I  am  that  you  ever 
saw  a  Baptist." 

Night  came,  and  with  it  came  the  committee  appointed 
by  the  Session — the  reverend  pastor  and  the  reverend 
doctor.  They  had  previously  consulted  and  arranged 


EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  293 

their  plan  of  argument.  Mr.  Johnson  knew  it  would 
not  be  worth  while  to  go  again  over  the  same  ground 
through  which  they  had  already  traveled.  They  had  in 
vain  searched  the  Scriptures  to  find  a  single  precept  or 
example  to  justify  the  baptism  of  infants.  They  con 
cluded,  therefore,  they  must  make  it  out  by  inference. 

"  I  understand,"  said  President  McNought,  "  that 
you  insist  on  some  express  precept  or  example  for  infant 
baptism,  before  you  will  receive  it  as  a  scriptural  prac 
tice?" 

"  Oh,  no,"  said  Professor  Jones  ;  "  I  am  by  no  means 
particular  about  the  character  of  the  proof.  I  only  ask 
for  Scripture  evidence  that  it  was  either  required  or 
practiced.  You  may  find  that  evidence  in  any  form  you 
can.  You  can't  find  the  precept  or  example,  that  is 
certain.  We  have  tried  it.  If  you  have  any  other  testi 
mony,  let  us  hear  it." 

"  The  truth  is,"  said  the  D.D.,  "there  was  no  necessity 
for  the  precept  or  example.  The  case  was  so  plain,  that 
the  early  disciples  could  not  help  understanding  their 
duty,  so  there  was  no  need  of  commanding  it. 

"  Children  had  always  made  a  part  of  the  Jewish 
Church,  and  unless  there  was  something  said  to  the 
contrary,  they  would  of  course  be  regarded  as  making  a 
part  of  the  Christian  church.  If,  therefore,  you  cannot 
prove  that  they  were  absolutely  excluded  from  the  Chris 
tian  church,  it  is  most  conclusively  evident  that  they 
were  received  into  it,  though  there  should  be  no  record 
of  the  fact." 

"To  that,"  said  the  Professor,  "I  might  reply  by 
saying  that  the  baptism  of  infants,  if  required  at  all,  is 
a  positive  institution  of  our  religion,  something  essen 
tially  binding  upon  the  Christian  churches.  And  it  is 
difficult  for  me  to  conceive  how  you  can  make  out  a 
positive  obligation  to  perform  a  certain  Christian  duty 


294  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

» 

in  a  church  capacity,  from  the  mere  fact  that  not  one 
word  is  said  about  it.  Your  argument  amounts  to  this. 
The  Jews  circumcised  their  male  infants  at  eight  days 
old,  because  God  had  again  and  again  positively  and 
plainly  commanded  them  to  do  so  ;  therefore  Christians 
should  baptize  all  their  infant  children,  both  male  and 
female,  because  the  Lord  has  given  no  commandment  on 
the  subject,  and  further,  because  we  cannot  find  the 
slightest  allusion  to  any  of  the  first  Christians  as  having 
done  or  refused  to  do  it,  nor  any  intimation  that  any 
person  was  ever  expected  to  do  it.  Such  logic  may  be 
very  conclusive  to  you,  but  I  can  never  be  convinced 
by  it. 

"  But  I  think  I  may  safely  venture  to  take  the  very 
ground  proposed  by  you,  and  prove  that  infants  (accor 
ding  to  your  own  language)  were  absolutely  excluded, 
both  by  the  commandments  of  the  Saviour  and  the  ex 
ample  of  the  early  Christians.  While  looking  in  vain 
for  any  precept  or  example  to  justify  the  baptism  of 
infants,  we  found  enough  both  of  precept  and  example 
to  satisfy  my  mind,  since  I  have  come  to  reflect  about 
it,  that  infant  baptism  is  absolutely  and  clearly  forbidden. 

"  It  is  forbidden  in  the  commission  itself.  The  com 
mand  to  baptize  believers  is  a  command  not  to  baptize 
any  but  believers.  The  command  to  make  disciples 
first  and  then  baptize  them,  is  a  command  not  to  baptize 
any  who  are  not  first  made  disciples.  If  I  tell  my  serv 
ant  to  go  and  wash  all  the  old  sheep  in  my  flock,  it  is 
equivalent  to  a  prohibition  to  wash  the  little  lambs.  If 
I  tell  him  to  cut  down  all  the  dead  trees  in  a  grove,  it 
is  equivalent  to  a  prohibition  to  cut  any  green  and  living 
ones — and  if  he  should  disobey  me  and  cut  the  green 
ones  also,  I  would  not  consider  it  a  valid  excuse,  that  I 
had  last  year,  on  another  plantation,  expressly  ordered 
him  to  girdle  both  green  and  dry.  So  the  command  to 


EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY. 

baptize  believers  excludes  all  others ;  and  as  infants 
cannot  believe,  it  excludes  them  from  the  very  necessity 
of  the  case.  Nor  would  I  like  to  offer,  for  the  violation 
of  this  command,  such  an  excuse  as  this:  Oh,  Lord,  I 
know  that  thou  didst  ordain  only  the  baptism  of  disciples 
and  believers — but  as  thou  didst,  under  a  former  dis 
pensation,  expressly  command  children  to  be  circum 
cised,  I  thought  thou  wouldst  prefer  to  ha"ve  them  bap 
tized  under  this,  although  thou  didst  omit  to  tell  us  so. 
Would  he  not  reply,  What  right  had  you  to  make  ordi 
nances  for  me  ?  If  I  commanded  the  Jews  to  circumcise 
their  children,  it  was  their  duty  to  do  it ;  and  when  I 
command  Christians  to  baptize  believers  and  disciples, 
it  is  their  duty  to  do  that.  '  Ye  are  my  friends  if  ye  do 
ivhatsoever  I  command  you. '  '  But  in  vain  do  you  worship 
me,  teaching  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men.' 

"And  as  a  prohibition  may  be  fairly  inferred  from  the 
command,  so  it  may  also  from  the  examples.  Among 
all  the  multitudes  who  came  to  John  and  were  baptized 
of  him  in  Jordan,  there  was  not  a  single  infant.  John 
required  repentance  and  faith  in  the  coming  Messiah 
as  an  indispensable  prerequisite.  He  taught  them  that 
the  Father's  faith  would  not  avail  in  this  new  dispensa 
tion.  '  Think  not  to  say  unto  yourselves,  we  have  Abra 
ham  for  our  father ;  but  bring  forth  for  yourselves  fruits 
suitable  to  repentance.' 

"  Those  who  were  baptized  by  Jesus  and  his  disciples, 
were  also  adult  believers,  for  the  Pharisees  heard  that 
Jesus  made  and  baptized  more  disciples  than  John.  He 
made  disciples  before  he  baptized  them.  Of  the  three 
thousand  mentioned  as  added  to  the  church  upon  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  there  was  not  one  infant,  nor  did  they 
bring  an  infant  with  them.  Of  the  five  thousand,  a  few 
days  after,  there  was  not  one  who  was  not  an  adult  be 
liever.  They  were  men  and  women.  Of  the  great 


2%  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

»' 

multitude  who  believed  and  were  baptized  in  Samaria 
when  PhiMp  preached,  there  was  not  a  single  little  child. 
The  Evangelist  expressly  classes  them  all  under  two 
heads, '  both  men  and  women.'  And  nowhere,  in  a  single 
case,  is  there  even  .-an  intimation  that  there  was  a  child 
baptized,  nor  is  any  one  ever  reproved  for  the  neglect 
to  have  it  done.  Now  if  this  does  not  absolutely  exclude 
them  by  example,  I  do  not  see  what  force  there  is  in  ex 
ample.  I  reply  to  your  argument,  therefore,  first,  by 
proving  that  even  if  infants  had  not  been  expressly  ex 
cluded,  there  would  not  be  the  slightest  warrant  for 
their  baptism  ;  and,  second,  by  showing  that  they  were 
absolutely  excluded,  both  by  Christ's  command  and  the 
practice  of  the  early  Christians." 

"  Then,"  said  Mr.  Johnson,  "  you  are  unwilling  to 
believe  that  '  baptism  has  come  in  the  room  of  circum 
cision,'  as  I  have  been  accustomed  to  inform  my  people 
every  time  an  infant  has  been  baptized  in  my  church  for 
twenty  years." 

"  Oh,  no,  Mr.  Johnson — not  at  all.  I  am  very  willing 
to  believe  it — I  may  almost  say,  I  am  very  desirous  to 
believe  it.  All  I  ask  is  that  you  will  give  the  slightest 
Scripture  proof  of  it.  You  are  too  good  a  Protestant 
to  ask  me  to  take  your  word  for  it,  or  even  the  often 
repeated  assertions  of  all  the  clergy  in  the  land.  Give 
me  one  text  of  Scripture  to  prove  it,  and  I  am  as  ready 
and  willing  to  believe  as  even  yourself  can  wish." 

"  You  know,"  replied  Mr.  Johnson,  "  that  we  teach 
'  that  baptism  is  instituted  by  Christ — that  it  is  a  seal 
of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  and  that  the  seed  of  the 
faithful  have  no  less  a  right  to  this  ordinance  under  the 
Gospel  than  the  seed  of  Abraham  to  circumcision  under 
the  Old  Testament.'" 

"  Oh,  yes — I  know  you  teach  this.  I  have  heard  and 
read  it  a  hundred  times :  and  I  have  no  doubt  most  of 


EIGHTH    NIUHT'S    STUDY.  297 

our  people  think  you  have  Scripture  to  show  for  it.  It  is 
not  enough,  however,  for  me  to  know  that  you  teach  it ; 
I  want  that  you  should  show  me  where  the  Lord  Jesus 
teaches  it,  or  where  lie  authorizes  you  to  teach  it. 
Where  is  it  said  or  even  intimated  '  that  the  seed  of  the 
faithful  have  no  less  a  right  to  this  ordinance  under  the 
Gospel  than  the  seed  of  Abraham  to  circumcision  under 
the  Old  Testament  ?'  If  it  is  in  the  Bible,  you  can  show 
it.  If  I  read  correctly,  the  seed  of  Abraham  had  a 
right,  or  rather  were  in  duty  bound  to  circumcise  their 
male  children  at  eight  days  old,  because  God  expressly 
commanded  it — to  give  the  children  of  believers  the  same 
right  to  baptism  would  therefore  require  an  express 
commandment  that  they  should  be  baptized.  But  you 
know  full  well  there  is  no  such  command.  I  have  heard 
a  great  deal  of,  to  me,  unintelligible  jargon  about  '  fed 
eral  holiness,' and  'covenant  holiness,'  and  the  'cove 
nant  of  circumcision,'  and  the  'Abrahamic  covenant,' 
etc.,  etc.  There  may  be  a  great  deal  of  sense  and  Scrip 
ture  in  it,  but  I  can't  understand  it.  I  want  a  plain 
Scriptural  statement  of  the  facts.  You  say  that  baptism 
came  in  the  room  of  circumcision.  Show  me  where  the 
Word  says  so.  Show  me  any  thing  like  it." 

"  If  you  will  take  the  Confession  of  Faith,"  replied 
the  Doctor  of  Divinity,  "and  turn  to  the  147th  page, 
you  will  see  the  texts  upon  which  this  doctrine  rests." 

"  Well,  here  is  a  copy.  Let  us  find  them  This  is 
coming  to  the  point.  If  any  text  is  mentioned  or  re 
ferred  to  which  gives  to  the  infant  children  of  believers 
the  same  claim  to  baptism  that  the  descendants  of 
Abraham  had  to  circumcision,  or  even  intimates  that 
baptism  has  come  in  the  room  of  circumcision,  I  am 
satisfied.  This  is  all  I  want." 

The  book  was  handed  to  the  pastor,  who  found  the 
page,  147,  and  read  as  follows  :  Gen.  xvii.  7,  9,  with 


298  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

•r 

Gal.  iii.  9 — 'And  I  will  establish  ray  covenant  between 
me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  genera 
tions,  for  an  everlasting  covenant ;  to  be  a  God  unto 
thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee.  And  God  said  unto 
Abraham,  thou  shalt  keep  my  covenant  therefore,  thou, 
and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations.' " 

"  Stop  a  minute,"  said  the  Professor.  "  Let  me  turn 
te  the  place  in  the  Bible.  We  will  understand  it  better 
to  read  it  in  its  connection.  Here  it  is,  Gen.  xvii.  7-9. 
Why  did  they  leave  out  the  8th  verse — 'And  I  will  give 
unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee,  the  land  wherein 
thou  art  a  stranger;  all  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  an  ever 
lasting  possession ;  and  I  will  be  their  God'  ?  This 
makes  it  all  very  plain.  God  agreed  with  Abraham  that 
he  would  give  his  seed  the  land  of  Canaan  for  a  posses 
sion  forever ;  and  as  a  condition,  on  the  other  part,  he 
required  (see  10th  verse)  that  every  man  child  should 
be  circumcised.  I  can  understand  all  that ;  but  what 
has  it  to  do  with  baptism  or  Christianity  ?  No  more 
than  the  carrying  of  the  bones  of  Joseph  out  of  Egypt." 

"  Oh,  yes  it  has,  Professor  Jones,  for  we  read  in  Gal. 
iii.  9 " 

"  Stop  a  minute,  till  I  find  the  place.  Now — but  let 
me  read  it ;  I  will  begin  at  the  6th  verse  :  '  Even  as 
Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  counted  unto  him  for 
righteousness.  Know  ye,  therefore,  that  they  ivhich  are 
of  faith,  the  same  are  the  children  of  Abraham.  And 
the  Scripture,  foreseeing  that  God  would  justify  the 
heathen  through  faith,  preached  before  the  Gospel  unto 
Abraham,  saying,  In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed.' 
And  now  comes  your  proof-text — '  So  then  they  which 
be  of  faith,  are  blessed  with  faithful  [believing]  Abra 
ham.'  Now,  I  think  I  can  understand  this;  but  for  the 
life  of  me  I  can't  see  one  word  about  baptism  in  it,  or 
of  circumcision  either.  There  is  no  more  allusion  to 


EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  299 

either,  than  there  is  to  the  lifting  up  of  the  brazen  ser 
pent  in  the  wilderness,  or  the  giving  of  the  law  on  Sinai, 
or  the  falling  down  of  the  walls  of  Jericho.  Abraham 
believed  God.  So  Christians  believe.  Abraham  was 
blessed  for  his  faith.  It  was  counted  to  him  for  right 
eousness.  So  we,  who  believe,  are  also  blessed  with 
believing  Abraham  ;  and  that  is  all.  There  is  surely  no 
infant  baptism  here.  What  is  the  next?" 

"  It  is  Romans  iv.  11,  12:  'And  he  received  the  sign 
of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith 
which  he  had,  being  uncircumcised ;  that  he  might  be 
the  father  of  all  them  that  believe,  though  they  be  not 
circumcised,'  etc." 

"  I  have  it  here,"  said  the  Professor,  as  he  found  the 
chapter ;  "  and  to  understand  the  sense,  I  see  it  will  be 
necessary  to  begin  at  the  first  of  the  chapter.  Paul  is 
proving  that  justification  is  by  faith,  and  not  by  works. 
So  he  says  even  Abraham  believed  (third  verse),  and  it 
was  counted  [or  reckoned]  unto  him  for  righteousness ; 
and  in  the  tenth  verse,  he  asks,  how  was  it  reckoned  ? 
before  he  was  circumcised  or  after?  It  was  before. 
He  had  the  faith,  and  he  received  the  sign  of  circum 
cision  as  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith.  And  the 
Apostle  goes  on  to  argue,  that  if  faith  was  counted  to 
him  for  righteousness,  while  he  was  yet  uncircumcised, 
so  it  will  be  counted  for  righteousness  to  all  who  believe 
in  Christ,  even  though  they  should  not  be  circumcised. 
But  what  has  all  this  to  do  with  baptism  ?  The  subject 
is  never  mentioned  or  alluded  to.  The  sentiment  is  the 
same  which  is  expressed  in  Galatians — Abraham  be 
lieved,  and  believing,  he  was  blessed.  So  Christians, 
believing  as  he  did,  will  like  him  be  blessed  ;  and  thus  all 
believers  may  be  counted  as  his  children  in  faith.  The 
only  allusion  to  circumcision  here,  is  made  to  show  that 
it  had  nothing  at  all  to  do  with  the  blessedness  of  faith. 


300  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

f 

To  baptism  there  is  no  allusion  at  all.  If  you  will 
satisfy  me  that  baptism  has  come  in  the  room  of  cir 
cumcision,  so  that  the  law  of  circumcision  was  trans 
ferred  to  baptism,  you  must  give  me  something  better 
than  this ;  and  if  there  were  any  thing  better,  the 
Confession  of  Faith  would  have  quoted  or  referred  to 
it.  I  take  it  for  granted,  therefore,  that  these  are  the 
strongest  proof-texts  you  can  present.  And  if  they 
prove  any  thing  at  all,  that  has  any  bearing  whatever 
upon  the  point  at  issue,  it  is  that  all  the  members  of  a 
Christian  church  must  of  necessity  be  professed  be 
lievers.  The  seed  of  Abraham  enjoyed  certain  blessings 
(the  possession  of  Canaan)  in  virtue  of  circumcision, 
but  the  righteousness  of  faith  pertained  to  Abraham,  as 
he  was  wncircumcised,  and  now  belongs  to  those  who 
are  his  children,  not  by  circumcision,  or  by  any  thing 
that  came  in  the  room  of  it,  but  by  the  same  faith  which 
he  exercised.  Those  who  believe,  and  only  those,  are  to 
be  partakers  of  the  blessing.  Christianity  is  a  personal, 
individual,  and  not  a  hereditary  religion.  In  the  New 
Dispensation,  every  man  stands  on  his  own  foundation, 
and  is  responsible  for  himself  to  God." 

"  I  do  not  see,"  replied  the  President,  "  why  you 
should  think  it  necessary  to  have  any  Scripture  to 
prove  a  familiar  and  notorious  fact.  It  is  well  known 
that  circumcision  was  the  initiatory  ordinance  of  the 
Jewish  Church,  and  we  all  agree  that  baptism  is  the 
initiatory  ordinance  into  the  Christian  church.  Of 
course,  then,  it  takes  the  place  of  the  other.  It  bears 
the  same  relation  to  the  Christian,  that  the  other  did 
to  the  Jewish  Church.  It  is  the  door  of  entrance.  Now, 
the  church  of  God  is,  and  has  been  in  every  age,  sub 
stantially  the  same,  although  existing  under  different 
names ;  and  consequently,  the  character  of  the  persons 
admitted  to  membership  must  have  been  the  same 


EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  301 

These  persons  among  the  Jews  were  admitted  by  cir 
cumcision,  and  among  Christians  by  baptism.  They 
were  the  infant  children  of  church  members  among 
them  ;  and  so,  of  course,  they  must  be  among  us.  We 
don't  need  any  express  text  to  prove  this,  for  it  is  self- 
evident  from  the  general  tenor  of  the  whole  Word." 

"  Your  argument,"  replied  Professor  Jones,  "  is 
simply  this:  Infants  were  members  of  the  Jewish 
Church ;  and,  as  the  church  of  God  is  always  substan 
tially  the  same,  they  must  be  members  of  the  Christian 
church.  The  door  of  entrance  is  changed,  but  there  is 
no  change  in  the  character  of  the  persons  who  are  to 
enter  it." 

"  Yes,  that  is  precisely  what  I  mean,  Whatever  other 
changes  were  made,  there  was  no  change  in  the  member 
ship." 

"Then,"  said  the  Professor,  "you  mean  precisely 
what  is  certainly  not  true.  Jesus  Christ,  when  he  com 
manded  the  new  door  to  be  opened,  commanded  also 
that  different  persons  should  enter  it.  To  the  Jews  he 
said,  bring  in  your  male  children  and  servants  at  eight 
days  old.  To  Christians  he  says,  bring  all  who  believe 
in  the  blessed  Gospel  which  I  send  you  to  preach.  If 
he  made  the  one  change,  he  just  as  clearly  made  the 
other.  Believers — as  Mr.  Johnson  and  I  have  seen  in 
our  examination  of  the  word — he  plainly  commands  to 
be  baptized  ;  but  he  commands  no  others,  and  no  others 
ever  were  baptized  in  all  the  history  which  the  New  Tes 
tament  records.  Neither  is  it  true  that  Christianity  is 
substantially  the  same  as  Judaism.  It  was  one  of  the 
most  earnest  labors  of  Paul  to  explain  and  enforce  the 
difference.  This  difference  was  substantial — it  was  fun 
damental — it  was  constitutional.  The  other  was  a  re 
ligion  of  works ;  this  is  one  of  faith.  That  was  one  of 
outward  forms ;  this  of  inward  affections.  That  con- 
26 


802  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

sisted  of  the  whole  Jewish  nation,  both  the  evil  and* 
good ;  this  is  confined  to  the  truly  converted.  That  was 
a  national  establishment,  and  this  an  assembly  of  true 
believers,  from  which  all  are  to  be  excluded  but  the 
pious  in  heart  and  the  holy  in  life.  This  substantial 
and  fundamental  change,  we,  as  Presbyterians,  recog 
nize  in  fact,  though  we  deny  it  in  theory.  We  say  that 
infants  are  church  members,  but  we  do  not,  in  this 
country,  treat  them  as  such  ;  we  do  not  address  them  as 
such ;  we  do  not,  in  fact,  consider  them  as  such.  You, 
in  your  preaching,  are  continually  urging  the  baptized 
children  who  have  come  to  years  of  discretion,  '  to  come 
out  from  the  world ;'  and  when  they  are  converted,  you 
urge  them  to  join  the  church.  It  is  true  that,  by  the 
Confession  of  Faith  (p.  504),  you  are  required  to  inform 
them  '  that  it  is  their  duty  and  their  privilege  to  come  to 
the  Lord's  Supper,'  whether  they  give  evidence  of  con 
version  or  not,  provided  only  that  they  are  intelligent 
and  moral.  But  you  never  do  it ;  and  half  our  members 
would  not  believe  that  we  have  any  such  rule.  In  other 
countries,  however,  this  is  done.  Our  theory  is  carried 
out  into  practice,  and  the  church  is  filled  with  uncon 
verted  men  and  women.  This  is  the  legitimate  result 
of  infant  church-membership." 

"  I  am  very  sorry,"  rejoined  the  pastor,  "  to  hear  you 
talk  in  this  way.  I  fear  you  are  preparing  great  trouble 
for  us,  and  are  about  to  bring  down  terrible  sorrow  upon 
your  own  head  and  that  of  your  family.  I  had  hoped, 
for  the  honor  of  our  beloved  church,  that  you  would 
have  thought  better  of  these  things.  We  have,  how 
ever,  done  our  duty.  The  Session  deputed  us  to  reason 
the  case  with  you,  and  endeavor  to  convince  you  of 
your  errors  ;  but  we  find  that  you  will  not  be  convinced. 
Let  us  hope,  however,  that  you  will  consider  further, 
and  carefully  weigh  the  unanswerable  arguments  which 


EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  303 

we  have  presented,  and  let  them  have  their  full  influ 
ence  upon  your  mind.  There  may  be  more  dependent 
on  it  than  you  are  aware  of.  I  suppose  it  is  not  worth 
while  to  spend  more  time  upon  the  subject ;  so  we  will 
bid  3^011  good-night." 

Professor  Jones  understood  very  well  the  ominous 
import  of  this  parting  address.  He  knew  that  his  home, 
his  emplo3rment,  his  all,  depended  on  the  will  of  a  few 
men,  some  of  whom  would  take  pleasure  in  rendering 
his  condition  as  wretched  as  possible,  so  soon  as  they 
had  no  further  hope  of  binding  him  to  themselves.  And 
he  knew,  on  the  other  hand,  that  those  to  whom  he  would 
go,  had  neither  influence  to  aid  him,  or  profitable  em 
ployment  to  furnish  him  the  means  of  support.  As 
soon  as  the  reverend  committee  had  retired,  he  fell  upon 
his  knees,  and  offered  up  to  God  his  thanks,  that  thus 
far  he  had  not  been  tempted  to  deny  his  truth,  or 
falsify  the  solemn  convictions  of  his  conscience.  And 
then,  in  view  of  what  he  now  began  to  feel  would  be  in 
evitable,  he  prayed  for  strength  to  obey  all  the  Master's 
will,  and  trust  God  for  the  consequences : 

"  Oh,  my  God !  I  see  before  me  nothing  but  trouble 
and  sorrow.  Want  and  affliction  stare  me  in  the  face. 
Lord,  give  me  strength  to  welcome  them,  or  at  least, 
firmly  to  endure  them.  Thou  canst  bring  good  out  of 
evil.  I  commit  my  destiny  into  thy  hands.  I  have 
trusted  my  immortal  soul  to  thee ;  why  may  I  not  trust 
my  body  and  my  family  ?  Thou  hast  promised  to  save 
the  one  and  to  provide  for  the  others.  Help  my  unbe 
lief  !  I  must  go  out  like  Abraham,  not  knowing  whither 
I  go.  I  look  to  thee,  my  Father  in  heaven,  to  open  the 
way  before  me." 

As  he  was  rising  from  his  knees,  the  remark  of  Theo- 
dosia,  as  she  came  from  the  water  with  her  face  so  full 
of  heavenly  joy,  came  back  to  his  mind  with  tenfold 


304  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

force  and  beauty — "  Uncle,  dear  imcle  !  it  is  blessed  to 
obey  !     Can't  you  give  up  all  for  Christ  ?" 

"  Yes,  yes,"  he  unconsciously  exclaimed,  "  I  will — I 
do  givB  up  all.  I  will  follow  where  duty  leads,  let  the 
consequence  be  what  it  may.  I  will  resign  my  professor 
ship  to-morrow.  God  will  provide  in  some  way  for  my 
wife  and  children." 

The  conversation  which  we  have  recorded  took  place 
in  his  private  study.  On  returning  to  his  family  room, 
he  was  delighted  to  find  there  his  sister,  Mrs.  Ernest, 
and  her  daughter,  and  also,  Mr.  Courtney,  who  had 
called  to  have  a  little  conversation  with  Theodosia,  and 
finding  they  were  about -to  start  out,  had  accompanied 
them  on  their  visit. 

Mrs.  Jones  had  been  so  anxious  about  the  result  of 
the  conference  with  the  committee,  that  she  could  not 
enjoy  the  society  of  her  visitors,  nor  even  exert  herself 
successfully  for  their  entertainment.  She  was,  therefore, 
greatly  relieved  when  her  husband  came  in  and  took 
that  task  upon  himself. 

"  I  wish  I  had  known  that  you  and  Theo.  were  here," 
said  he,  "  I  would  have  turned  the  reverend  committee 
who  have  just  left  me  over  to  you." 

"I  do  not  understand  what  you  mean,"  said  Mr. 
Courtney. 

"  Only  this.  My  brethren  in  the  Church  Session  have 
learned  that  I  do  not  any  longer  believe  that  sprinkling 
is  baptism,  or  that  any  but  believers  are  to  be  baptized. 
And  they  have  deputized  Dr.  McNought  and  Pastor 
Johnson  to  endeavor  to  bring  me  back  into  a  belief  of 
their  human  traditions.  Their  main  argument  at  this 
time  was  on  the  baptism  of  infants  as  founded  on  the 
usage  of  the  Jews.  Baptism,  they  said,  has  come  in  the 
room  of  circumcision  ;  and  as  infants  were  circumcised, 


EIGHTH  flrcniT's  STUDY.  305 

so  infants  must  be  baptized.     What  answer  would  you 
have  made  ?" 

"  I  would  have  said :  Gentlemen,  you  do  not  your 
selves  believe  that  baptism  came  in  the  room  of  circum 
cision  in  any  such  sense  that  the  same  order  of  persons 
who  were  circumcised  are  to  be  baptized  ;  or,  if  you  be 
lieve  it,  you  do  not  act  out  your  faith.  The  law  of  cir 
cumcision  included  only  males,  but  you  baptize  both 
males  and  females.  The  child,  when  it  was  possible, 
was  to  be  circumcised  at  eight  days  old,  but  you  baptize 
at  any  other  time.  The  servants  and  the  slaves,  whether 
old  or  young,  whether  born  in  their  house  or  bought  with 
their  money,  were  to  be  circumcised,  but  you  never  bap 
tize  them — but  only  the  children.  They  were  to  be  cir 
cumcised  by  the  parents  and  not  by  the  priest ;  but  you 
require  baptism  to  be  done  by  the  minister.  If  the  law 
of  circumcision  is  transferred  to  baptism  in  one  particu 
lar  (without  any  New  Testament  authority)  it  is  equally 
transferred  in  all  the  others. 

"  Then  I  would  have  said  further :  Baptism  could  not 
come  in  the  room  of  circumcision,  because  circumcision 
is  still  in  force.  No  room  was  ever  made  for  the  second 
by  taking  away  the  first.  The  truth  is  simply  this  : 
God  made  a  covenant  or  agreement  with  Abraham,  when 
he  was  ninety-nine  years  old,  in  which  he  promised  to 
his  seed  the  land  of  Canaan.  *  The  token  or  memento 
of  this  contract  was  the  circumcision  of  every  male. 
This  was  the  condition  of  their  entering  Canaan.  This 
is  noiv  the  condition  of  their  restoration  to  it.  The 
promise  still  stands.  The  Jews  are  still  a  separate 
people.  This  is  their  mark.  By  this  they  are  yet  to 
claim  their  inheritance.  This  is  its  object,  and  this  the 
sum  of  its  value.  The  covenant  has  not  been  revoked. 
It  is  still  in  force,  and  its  seal  or  token  still  remains. 

"God    made   with    Abraham   another  covenant   some 


306  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

»* 

twenty-four  years  earlier,  in  which  he  promised  him, 
among  other  things,  '  That  in  his  seed  should  all  the  na 
tions  of  the  earth  be  blessed.' — Gen.  xii.  3.  This  is 
what  Paul  refers  to  when  he  says,  Gal.  iii.  8 — '  The  Gos 
pel  was  preached  unto  Abraham,  and  Abraham  believed 
it.'  He  trusted  in  the  Christ  to  come,  and  so  was,  in  a 
certain  sense,  a  member  of  Christ's  church.  So  was 
Noah — so  was  Enoch — rso  were  all  who  like  Abraham 
believed  God,  and  it  was  counted  unto  them  for  right 
eousness.  They  were  not  introduced  into  it  by  circum 
cision — nor  was  Abraham  himself — for  it  was  twenty- 
four  years  after  he  heard  and  believed  the  Gospel,  before 
he  was  circumcised.  He  was  a  member  of  Christ's  mys 
tical  body,  and  an  heir  of  the  heavenly  Canaan,  without 
the  seal  of  circumcision.  By  it  he  and  his  seed  became 
the  heirs  of  the  earthly  Canaan.  This  was  its  object, 
and  no  more.  The  blessings  of  the  Gospel  are  to  us, 
as  to  him,  the  result  of  personal  faith.  Thus,  the}'  who 
are  of  faith,  are  blessed  with  [believing]  faithful  Abra 
ham  ;  and  thus  far,  and  no  further,  this  first-made  cove 
nant  with  Abraham  extends  to  us.  If  we  believe  as  he 
believed,  we  shall  be  blessed  as  he  was  blessed.  This  is 
all  that  any  one  can  make  out  of  all  that  is  said  of  the 
relationship  of  the  Patriarch  and  believers. 

"I  should  have  said  to  them  further:  Gentlemen,  you 
call  the  Jewish  nation  the  church  of  God,  and  tell  us 
that  the  Christian  church  is  the  same  under  a  different 
dispensation.  But  Christ  calls  that  nation  the  world, 
in  opposition  to  his  church.  The  disciples  to  whom 
Christ  spake,  John  xv.  19,  were  men  in  good  and  regu 
lar  standing  in  the  Jewish  nation,  which  3-011  call  the 
church.  Yet  Christ  says,  I  have  chosen  you  out  of  the 
world — and  therefore  the  world,  that  is,  the  Jewish  na 
tion,  hateth  you.  Paul  was  not  only  a  member,  but  an 
eminent  member  of  this  Jewish  body ;  but  he  says  that 


EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  307 

he  was  a  persecutor  of  the  CHURCH  OF  GOD.  Nicodemus 
was  a  '  master  in  Israel ;'  but  Christ  told  him  he  could 
not  come  into  his  church  till  he  had  been  born  again. 
The  Jews  needed  conversion  as  much  as  any,  before 
they  could  make  any  portion  of  the  church  of  God. 
This  church  God  set  up  for  the  first  time  when  John 
began  to  preach.  For  the  first  time  he  organized  a  visi 
ble  assembly  of  penitent,  believing,  holy  persons.  There 
were  good  men,  pious,  devoted  men  and  women,  among 
the  Jews ;  but  they  were  not  gathered  into  a  church. 
The  Jewish  nation  had  some  religious  privileges ;  but  it 
was  not  in  the  Gospel  sense  a  church.  And  when  Christ 
established  his  church,  he  made  the  terms  of  member 
ship  such  as  were  intended  to  preserve  its  purity  and 
separation  from  all  national  politics.  People  were  not 
to  be  born  into  it,  but  to  enter  it  by  faith  and  baptism. 
'He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized.'  But  by  the  intro 
duction  of  infant  baptism,  the  object  of  this  arrange 
ment  is  entirely  defeated." 

"  I  have  often  thought,"  said  Theoclosia,  "  since  my 
attention  has  been  directed  to  the  subject,  what  disas 
trous  consequences  must  follow  if  the  theory  of  Pedo- 
baptism  were  fully  carried  out,  and  infants  actually 
recognized  and  treated  as  members  of  the  visible  church." 

"  If  you  would  fully  realize  what  the  consequences 
would  be,  you  have  only  to  go  to  those  States  of  Europe 
where  this  is  actually  done.  You  will  see  men  who 
blaspheme  their  Maker  on  the  way  to  church,  go  and 
partake  of  the  Holy  Supper.  You  will  see  them  leave 
the  church  where  they  have  so  partaken,  and  openly 
resort  to  the  ball  room,  the  horse  race,  the  drinking 
saloon,  the  gambling  house,  the  cock  pit,  and  even  to 
the  very  lowest  and  vilest  haunts  of  dissipation.  They 
are  members  of  the  church.  They  were  made  such  at 
eight  days  old.  When  they. could  say  the  catechism 


308  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

_  * 

they  were  confirmed,  and  informed,  according  to  the 
directions  of  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  that 
'  it  is  their  duty  and  their  privilege  to  come  to  the  Lord's 
table.'  To  be  baptized  in  infancy  and  confirmed  in 
childhood,  are  all  that  is  needful  to  church  membership. 
That  faith  required  by  the  Gospel,  they  laugh  at.  They 
call  those  who  profess  to  know  any  thing  about  it  in 
their  own  experience,  deluded  enthusiasts.  They  know 
no  more  of  religion  than  its  external  ceremonies.  They 
have  the  form  of  godliness,  but  deny  the  power.  Such 
was  the  Presbyterian  Church  to  which  Dr.  Carson 
preached  in  the  North  of  Ireland.  '  In  the  general  dis 
regard  of  religion,'  says  Ms  biographer,  '  the  people  of 
his  charge  were  not  behind  their  neighbors.  Horse 
races,  cock  fights,  and  other  forms  of  sinful  diversion 
were  frequent,  and  were  numerously  attended  even  by 
professing  Christians.  The  soul  of  this  pious  servant 
of  God  was  deeply  grieved.  He  knew  well  the  heaven- 
born  excellence  of  Christianity,  and  clearly  understood 
what  should  be  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  but  he  beheld 
around  him  only  the  works  of  the  devil.  He  rode  into 
the  throng  that  crowded  the  race-course,  and  saw  there 
the  members  of  his  own  church  flying  in  every  direction 
to  escape  his  sight.'  *  *  '  His  church  was  composed  of 
worldly  people,  whom  neither  force  nor  persuasion  could 
bring  into  subjection  to  the  Laws  of  Christ.'  In  Ger 
many  and  some  other  European  States,  every  body  is  in 
the  church.  Every  body  is  recognized  as  a  church  mem 
ber.  Thieves,  gamblers,  drunkards,  and  prostitutes  are 
members  of  the  church.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  the 
world.  The  church  has  swallowed  it  up.  It  has  taken 
all  the  infidelity,  all  the  atheism,  all  the  blasphemy,  all 
the  vice,  and  all  the  depravity  of  the  world  into  its  own 
bosom.  This  is  the  natural  and  necessary  result  of  re 
ceiving  all  the  infants  as  church  members.  The  church 


EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY. 

has  ceased  to  be  the  body  of  Christ,  and  has  become  a 
loathsome  mass  of  hypocrisy  and  vice.  There  may  be 
in  it  some  few  good  and  pious  believers  in  Jesus.  There 
are  in  it  many  upright,  and  honorable,  and  moral  citi 
zens  :  but  these,  as  church  members,  are  not  at  all  to  be 
distinguished  from  the  basest  profligates  that  issue  forth 
from  the  reeking  stews  of  infamy.  They  have  all  alike 
been  baptized  in  infancy  and  confirmed  in  childhood, 
without  any  profession  of  conversion  to  God — most  of 
them  denying  the  necessity  of  any  such  change,  and  all 
sit  down  alike  to  the  same  table  of  the  Lord." 

"  Surely,  Mr.  Courtney,  you  do  not  mean  to  speak  thus 
of  the  Protestant  churches  of  Europe  !  I  know  it  is  true 
in  regard  to  the  Catholics ;  but  since  the  Reformation, 
it  cannot  be  true  of  any  others." 

"  Yes,  Mrs.  Jones,  I  mean  to  say  this  of  the  Protes 
tant  churches,  wherever  they  have  become  national 
churches,  and  by  the  process  of  infant  baptism  have  ab 
sorbed  the  whole  population.  It  is  necessarily  true  of 
any  church  which  receives  its  members  in  this  way.  It 
would  be  true  in  this  country,  if  you  Presbyterians,  and 
the  Episcopalians,  and  Lutherans,  and  Methodists 
could  by  any  means  accomplish  what  you  all  so  earnestly 
are  laboring  to  attain — viz. :  to  induce  all  the  people  to 
have  their  children  baptized." 

"  Oh,  no,  Mr.  Courtney.  You  must  have  conceived  a 
terribly  mistaken  idea  of  what  we  aro  all  aiming  at.  We 
desire,  I  trust,  as  much  as  the  Baptists  themselves,  to 
keep  our  churches  pure,  and  are  as  strict  in  our  terms 
of  membership  and  as  rigid  in  our  discipline  as  you 
are.  We  want  our  churches  to  consist,  as  they  now  do, 
of  godly  people,  and  would  not  for  a  day  permit  such 
as  you  have  mentioned  to  remain  in  our  communion." 

"  I  know  it,  Mrs.  Jones ;  but  in  order  to  do  this  you 
are  obliged  continually  to  repudiate  your  own  acts,  and 


310  THEODOSIA   EENEST. 

deny  in  practice  what  you  teach  in  theory.  I  was 
speaking  of  what  the  result  must  be,  provided  you  could 
induce  all  the  people  to  have  their  infants  baptized,  and 
should  then  recognize  these  baptized  ones  as  church 
members  in  fact,  as  you  do  in  theory. 

"  Listen  one  minute,  and  I  will  satisfy  you  that  what 
I  say  is  strictly  true.  You  teach  that,  as  circumcision 
was  the  door  of  entrance  into  the  Jewish  Church,  so  bap 
tism  is  the  door  of  entrance  into  the  church  of  Christ. 
If  so,  all  who  are 'baptized  are  church  members.  Now, 
you  Presbyterians  say  all  the  children  of  believing 
parents  must  be  baptized.  In  your  churches  you  bap 
tize  all  the  children  of  those  parents  who  have  been  bap 
tized.  The  Episcopalians  baptize  any  child  for  whom 
proper  sponsors  will  stand.  The  Methodists  will  bap 
tize  all  the  children,  with  or  without  believing  parents. 
Now,  if  you  could  succeed  (as  by  sermons,  books,  tracts, 
and  newspapers  you  are  all  striving  to  do)  in  convincing 
all  the  people  that  you  are  right,  and  prevail  upon  them 
to  bring  all  their  children,  and  have  them  thus  initiated 
into  the  church  of  Christ — I  ask  you  of  whom,  in  the 
next  generation,  would  the  church  consist  ?  It  would  be 
composed  of  these  infants,  then  grown  to  manhood.  If 
that  generation  be  like  the  present,  or  the  past,  it  will 
consist  mostly  of  unregenerate  men  and  women.  A  few 
will  be  converted — many  will  be  moral — most  will  be 
wicked,  and  many  will  be  most  vile.  They  will  all,  how 
ever,  have  entered  into  the  church  of  Jesus  Christ  by 
the  door  of  baptism,  and  will  every  one  be  members  of 
Christ's  visible  kingdom." 

"  Oh,  no,  Mr.  Courtney ;  we  would  exclude  the  wicked 
and  unworthy  by  process  of  discipline." 

"  Who  would  exercise  discipline,  Mrs.  Jones  ?  This 
would  be  a  body  of  unregenerate  men.  They  would  have 
no  love  to  Christ  or  his  cause.  The  power  of  discipline 


EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  311 

is  in  their  own  hands.  If  they  exclude  all  that  do  not 
give  evidence  of  piety,  they  will  exclude  themselves. 
The}-  will  do  no  such  thing.  They  may  exclude  the 
openly  and  scandalously  vicious,  for  the  reputation  of 
their  denomination,  while  there  are  several  sects  striving 
for  the  supremacy  ;  but  if  (as  in  those  countries  I  spoke 
of)  any  one  sect  could  swallow  up  the  rest,  and  by  con 
nection  with  the  State  become  the  national  religion,  then 
a  man  would  hold  his  right  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  and 
all  the  privileges  of  the  church,  by  about  the  same 
tenure  that  he  held  his  right  to  vote  or  to  exercise  any 
other  privilege  of  citizenship." 

"But  if  this  is  so,  Mr.  Courtney,  wh}'  don't  we  see  at 
least  some  illustrations  of  the  principle  among  us  now  ? 
Why  are  not  our  churches  now  filled  with  unconverted 
men  and  women  ?" 

"  Simply  because  you  don't  act  out  your  principles. 
Your  churches  are  filled  with  unbelievers,  but  you 
refuse  to  recognize  them.  You  daily  repudiate  your 
own  acts,  and  continually  falsify  your  own  theory. 
You  baptize  infants,  and  you  say  you  do  it  to  introduce 
them  into  the  church  of  Christ.  But  you  don't  believe 
it.  You  ijever  treat  them  as  church  members.  You 
give  them  none  of  the  privileges  of  church  members. 
You  don't  count  them  in  the  list  of  your  church  mem 
bers.  They  do  not  regard  themselves  as  church  mem 
bers.  They  do  not  claim  or  enjoy  any  of  the  privileges 
of  membership.  They  do  not  exercise  the  discipline 
of  the  church  on  others,  nor  are  they  considered  sub 
jects  for  its  discipline.  They  are  practically  as  separate 
from  the  church  as  the  children  of  an  infidel  or  a 
Hottentot.  It  is  thus,  and  only  thus,  that  you  retain 
any  degree  of  purity  in  your  actual  membership.  Your 
church  consists  in  fact,  of  believers,  and  not,  as  your 
book  says,  of  '  believers  and  their  children.1  You  thus 


312  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

t 

obviate  one  of  the  evils  of  infant  baptism,  by  a  virtual 
repudiation  of  the  act  and  regarding  it  in  practice  as  a 
nullity.  Mrs.  Ernest  does  not  look  upon  her  son  Edwin 
as  a  member  of  the  church.  She  did  not  consider  t  you 
a  member,  Miss  Theodosia,  till  about  a  year  ago,  when 
you  professed  your  faith  in  Christ,  and  as  they  all 
expressed  it,  'joined  the  church."1  How  could  you  be 
said  to  join  it,  if  up  to  that  time  you  had  not  been  con 
sidered  as  separate  from  it  ?  The  baptized  children  are 
urged,  like  others,  to  come  out  from  the  world,  and  to 
unite  with  the  people  of  God,  when  they  have  believed  in 
Christ ;  and  those  who  have  thus  believed,  and  made  them 
selves  a  public  profession  of  their  faith,  you  count  as 
members  ;  and  to  them  and  them  alone  3rou  give  the 
privileges  of  members.  And  this  simple  fact,  that  you 
are  obliged  to  treat  the  baptized  infants,  when  they 
grow  up,  as  though  they  had  not  been  baptized  at  all, 
in  order  to  preserve  the  spirituality  and  purit}7  of  the 
church,  is  of  itself  sufficient  proof  that  your  celebrated 
historian,  Neander,  tells  the  truth  when  he  says  '  It  is 
certain  that  Christ  did  not  ordain  infant  baptism.' " 

"  Well,  Mr.  Courtney,"  replied  Professor  Jones,  "  is 
there  any  other  argument  you  would  have  urged  upon 
the  attention  of  my  reverend  visitors,  had  you  been 
present  ?" 

"  Yes,  sir.  I  would  have  said  further :  Gentlemen,  if 
you  found  infant  baptism  on  Jewish  circumcision  ;  if  you 
declare,  that  the  Christian  and  the  Jewish  Church  are  the 
same,  but  only  under  different  dispensations ;  and  that 
because  infants  were  circumcised  in  the  old,  infants 
must  be  baptized  in  the  new,  how  can  you  get  rid  of  the 
necessity  for  a  national  church  ?  The  Jewish  Church 
was  a  national  church:  it  united  Church  and  State. 
The  Christian  is  the  same,  and  it  must  consequently  be 
a  national  establishment  too.  We  must  unite  the  Church 


EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY. 

and  State.  For  this,  every  Christian  should  strive. 
Of  this  union,  where  it  exists,  no  Christian  should  com 
plain  ;  for  there  is  certainly  as  much  Scriptural 
authority  for  it  as  there  is  for  infant  baptism.  And 
further,  gentlemen,  you  must  receive  and  recognize  not 
merely  three  orders  of  the  ministry,  like  the  Episco 
palians  ;  not  merely  deacons,  priests,  and  bishops,  but 
also  a  grand  and  supreme  ruler  of  them  all,  similar  to 
the  Pope.  The  Jewish  polity  had  its  common  priests, 
its  chief  priests — who  controlled  certain  numbers  of  the 
others — and  its  High  Priest,  who  was  above  them  all. 
So,  to  correspond,  there  should  be  the  Presbyters,  the 
Bishops,  and  the  Archbishops,  if  not  the  Pope.  This 
has  quite  as  much,  and  the  same  sort  of  Scriptural 
authority  as  infant  baptism.  To  this,  they  would  have 
replied,  by  saying,  that  the  constitution  of  the  Chris 
tian  church  is  to  be  found  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
that  we  learn  what  its  officers  were,  by  seeing  what 
ones  were  ordered  or  recognized  by  Christ  and  the 
Apostles  ;  and  they  neither  commanded  nor  recognized 
but  one  order  of  ministers.  This  is  good  logic,  I  do  not 
object  to  it.  But  I  ask  if  the  membership  of  the  Chris 
tian  church  is  not  designated  in  the  New  Testament 
even  more  clearly  than  its  officers  ?  If  baptism  is  the 
door  of  entrance,  show  me  a  single  instance  where  any 
one  is  permitted,  much  less  commanded,  to  enter  in 
upon  the  faith  of  any  but  himself.  Show  me  any 
instance  in  which  an  infant  was  received,  or  ordered  to 
be  received ;  any  in  which  one  was  recognized  as  a 
church  member,  or  even  where  there  was  the  slightest 
allusion  to  him  as  such.  They  cannot  find  one ;  and  so, 
upon  their  own  principles,  must  take  the  whole  para 
phernalia  of  Episcopacy,  and  Church  and  State,  or  give 
up  infant  baptism." 

"  But,  Mr.  Courtney,  as  you  say  that  among  us  Pres- 
2T 


314  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

byterians  in  this  country,  infant  baptism  is  a  mere  nul+ 
lity,  as  we  don't  count  the  baptized  as  church  members, 
or  give  up  the  discipline  of  the  church  into  their  hands ; 
as  they  have,  in  fact,  no  more  to  do  with  the  church 
than  other  people,  and  cannot,  therefore,  injure  its 
standing  or  diminish  its  spirituality,  what  harm  can  it 
do  to  baptize  infants  ?" 

"What  harm!  Alas!  madam,  I  am  incompetent  to 
tell  the  thousandth  part  of  the  harm  that  it  has  done,  is 
doing,  and  will  continue  to  do  so  long  as  it  is  practiced. 
Pardon  me,  if  I  decline  attempting  to  answer  your  ques 
tion." 

"  Well,  then,  if  you  can't  tell  what  harm  it  does,  why 
do  you  talk  so  much  against  it  ?" 

"  I  can't  tell  I  Oh,  yes,  but  I  can  tell.  I  can  tell  so 
much  that  you  would  not  have  the  patience  to  hear.  I 
can  tell  such  things  of  it,  that  you  would  almost  think 
it  impolite  to  mention.  And  that  is,  in  truth,  the  reason 
why  I  felt  disposed  to  decline  a  proper  reply  to  your 
question.  If  I  should  speak  of  this  act,  which  you  per 
form  as  a  religious  duty,  as  I  think  it  deserves,  I  should 
characterize  it  as  a  heinous  sin,  an  act  of  daring  rebel 
lion  against  God ;  and  this  you  would  think  scarcely 
becoming  in  me  as  your  guest.  If  I  should  tell  you  all 
the  harm  I  know  of  infant  baptism,  instead  of  con 
vincing,  I  should  probably  make  you  angry.  You  have 
been  so  long  accustomed  to  look  upon  it  as  something 
sacred  and  holy,  that  you  could  hardly  avoid  feeling 
indignant  at  hearing  what  I,  after  careful  and  prayerful 
study  of  the  subject,  have  come  to  think  of  it." 

"  I  don't  see  how  you  could  say  much  worse  things 
about  it  than  you  have  already ;  but  I  assure  you  that  I 
will  keep  my  temper,  let  you  say  what  you  may.  So 
you  may  consider  yourself  as  having  full  license  to  say 


EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  315 

to  me  in  my  own  house,  any  thing  that  you  would  feel 
at  liberty  to  say  to  me  or  any  one  any  where  else." 

"Yes,"  rejoined  Mrs.  Ernest,  "do  go  on  and  tell  us 
all  you  think  about  it.  I  have  some  curiosity  to  under 
stand  just  what  you  Baptists  do  think  of  us  Presbyte 
rians.  I  know  you  have  a  very  mean  opinion  of  us,  but 
I  would  like  to  know  just  how  mean  it  is." 

"  Go  on,  Courtney ;  you  have  the  ladies'  curiosity  ex 
cited  now,  and  you  will  be  obliged  to  gratify  it.  If  you 
don't  tell  what  you  think,  they  will  imagine  it  is  some 
thing  very  horrible  indeed.  For  myself,  I  am  satisfied 
now  that  it  is  a  thing  not  commanded,  and  therefore  I 
would  not  practice  it ;  but  I  don't  see  what  great  harm 
there  is  in  it.  It  is  a  simple  ceremony,  and  if  not  re 
quired,  a  very  useless  one ;  but  I  don't  see  who  is  hurt 
by  it.  We  are,  however,  all  of  us  prepared  now  to  hear 
hard  things  from  the  Baptists.  We  don't  look  for  any 
thing  else." 

"  I  should  be  very  sorry  to  believe  that  Baptists  were 
accustomed  to  say  hard  things  of  their  opponents,  what 
ever  they  may  feel  it  their  duty  to  say  to  them.  Mrs. 
Ernest  thinks  I  have  a  very  mean  opinion  of  Presbyte 
rians.  She  is  utterly  mistaken.  Many  of  the  best  and 
most  earnest-hearted  children  of  God  whom  I  have  ever 
known  are  Presbyterians.  I  not  only  esteem  them 
highly,  I  love  them  dearly.  I  love  them  not  only  as 
individuals,  but  as  Christians.  I  count  them  my 
brethren  and  my  sisters  in  the  Lord ;  but  at  the  same 
time,  I  think  they  have  been  educated  in  error,  and  are 
in  some  things  most  grossly  deceived.  They  are  to  that 
extent  wrong  in  their  faith,  and  wrong  in  their  practice. 
The  more  I  love  them,  the  more  I  would  rejoice  to  set 
them  right.  I  hate  error  and  wrong  in  them  as  in  others. 
I  oppose  it ;  I  reason  against  it ;  I  denounce  it  in  them 
as  well  as  in  others.  It  is  not  their  persons,  but  their 


316  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

opinions  that  I  war  against.  In  most  cases,  I  do  not 
even  esteem  them  less  for  holding  these  erroneous 
opinions ;  for  I  know  they  are  sincere  and  conscientious. 
They  have  been  deceived  by  those  who  have  instructed 
them.  They  have  never  had  the  truth  laid  fairly  before 
their  minds.  Early  education,  denominational  attach 
ments  and  prejudices  have  enveloped  their  intellects  in 
such  a  cloud,  that  it  is  hard  for  the  clear  light  of  Scrip 
ture  truth  to  find  its  way  into  their  hearts.  I  was  as 
honest  and  sincere  when  I  believed  that  sprinkling  was 
baptism,  and  that  infants  were  to  be  baptized,  as  I  am 
now.  So  was  Miss  Theodosia.  Nor  were  we  suddenly 
convinced  that  we  were  wrong.  The  light  shone  in  little 
by  little.  What  was  at  first  a  doubt,  became  a  certainty 
by  patient  investigation.  It  is  not  long  since  I  said,  as 
you  do — infant  baptism  is  not  commanded.  It  is  not 
authorized  by  the  "Word  of  God,  but  still  it  is  only  a 
useless  ceremony.  Let  those  who  will,  engage  in  it.  No 
good  is  done ;  but  yet  it  does  no  harm.  Since  that  time, 
I  have  studied  the  subject  more  carefully.  The  more  I 
looked  at  it,  the  more  fearful  it  appeared.  And  I  am 
now  fully  convinced,  that  he  who  baptizes  an  infant  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  is  guilty 
of  a  most  enormous  sin  in  the  sight  of  God  !  And  this 
is  not  less  true  because  good  men  have  done  it,  and  are 
doing  it  still.  Good  men  have  often  been  ignorantly 
guilty  of  most  enormous  crimes.  That  excellent  and 
holy  man  of  God,  Rev.  John  Newton,  was  for  years  after 
his  conversion  engaged  in  the  slave  trade.  It  was  then 
considered  a  reputable  and  righteous  business.  Many 
good  men  of  the  past  generation  were  engaged  in  the 
manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicating  drinks.  It  was 
then  considered  a  legitimate  and  Christian  calling.  No 
good  man  will  engage  in  it  now.  Their  ignorance  was 
their  excuse.  God  forgave  them  as  he  did  Paul  for 


EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  317 

persecuting  his  people — because  he  did  it  ignorantly, 
and  verily  thought  he  was  doing  God  service.  His  con 
scientious  sincerity  did  not,  however,  make  the  act  a 
righteous  one.  The  deed  was  still  one  of  terrible  wicked 
ness  and  daring  impiety.  So  I  say  of  those  who  prac 
tice  infant  baptism ;  so  I  would  say  to  them  if  I  could. 
They  may  be  good  men.  Some  of  them  are  good  men 
• — earnest,  warm-hearted,  devoted  Christians;  but  they 
are  ignorantly  sinning  against  God.  It  may  not  be  be 
coming  in  me  to  reprove  men  older,  and  better,  and  more 
useful  than  myself;  but  surely  I  may  entreat  them,  as 
my  brethren  and  fathers,  to  do  'no  more  so  wickedly.'  " 

"  But  what  is  there  so  wicked  about  it,  Mr.  Court 
ney  ?" 

"  Much,  every  way.  In  the  first  place,  if  you  will 
excuse  me  for  talking  so  plainly,  infant  baptism,  as 
practiced  by  Presbyterians  in  this  country,  is  a  continu 
ally  repeated  falsehood  ! 

"  You  say  that  '  baptism  is  a  sacrament  of  the  New 
Testament,  ordained  by  Jesus  Christ,  not  only  for  the 
solemn  admission  of  the  party  baptized  into  the  visible 
church,  but  also  to  be  unto  him  a  sign  and  seal  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  of  his  ingrafting  into  Christ,  of  re 
generation,  of  remission  of  sins,  and  of  his  giving  up  unto 
God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  to  walk  in  newness  of  life.' 
—  Con.  of  Faith,  p.  144. 

"  Now,  this  is  either  true  or  false.  If  it  is  true,  then 
the  person  baptized  is  admitted  into  the  visible  church 
of  Christ.  You  say  it  is  true,  and  that  you  do  thus 
admit  him ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  if  I  point  you  to  one 
of  these  members  thus  received  in  infancy,  staggering 
from  the  grog-shop,  and  ask  you  if  he  is  a  member,  you 
tell  me — No.  You  would  be  ashamed  to  think  that  such 
a  wretch  had  any  connection  with  your  church.  Is  his 
father  a  member  ?  Yes,  one  of  the  best  men  in  the 


318  THEOD08IA   ERNEST. 

church.  Did  he  have  his  children  baptized  ?  Yes,  I 
suppose  he  did.  Has  this  man  ever  been  excluded? 
No,  you  reply,  he  never  joined  the  church.  He  grew 
up  a  wild  and  reckless  boy,  and  has  always  been  a 
vicious,  dissipated  man.  He  was  never  in  the  church ; 
nobody  ever  thought  of  such  a  thing.  There  is  an 
amiable  young  lady,  moral,  irreproachable  in  her  char 
acter  ;  but  she  makes  no  pretensions  to  religion — she  is 
perfectly  indifferent  to  it.  Is  she  a  member  of  your 
church  ?  Oh,  no ;  our  members  are  all  spiritual-minded 
Christians.  She  has  never  even  expressed  a  conviction 
of  sin,  or  even  the  slightest  desire  to  join  the  church. 
Why  do  you  ask  if  she  is  a  member  ?  Simply  because 
I  remember  when  she  was  baptized.  Does  not  baptism 
admit  persons  into  the  visible  church  ?  Yes ;  but  we 
never  consider  them  as  members  till  they  make  a  pro 
fession  of  religion  and  join  the  church  again.  Then 
your  baptism  is  a  solemn  falsehood,  for  it  does  not 
admit  into  the  church  at  all. 

"  But  now,  if  you  take  the  other  horn  of  the  dilemma, 
and  say  we  do  admit  them — then  I  reply,  you  are  guilty 
of  introducing  into  the  church  of  Christ  wicked  and 
unregenerate  men  and  women.  If  you  recognize  them 
as  members,  and  treat  them  as  members,  you  at  once 
destroy  the  distinction  between  the  church  and  the 
world.  The  church  no  longer  is  Christ's  kingdom.  It 
is  no  more  a  body  of  his  people.  It  consists,  in  part 
at  least,  of  the  wicked  and  profligate  descendants  of  his 
people. 

"  But  you  say,  further,  that  baptism  is  to  the  bap 
tized  '  a  sign  and  a  seal  of  his  ingrafting  into  Christ' — 
'  of  his  regeneration' — and  of  '  remission  of  his  sins,'  etc. 
Now  this  is  true  or  it  is  false.  You  say  it  is  true.  A 
mother  brings  her  babe  to  have  it  sprinkled.  It  is  a 
beautiful  child,  and  she  verily  thinks  she  is  doing  God 


EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  319 

service — and  is,  herself,  a  lovely  object,  as  she  stands 
there  with  the  infant  in  her  arms.  But  now  I  ask  you, 
Is  that  child  '  regenerated'  ?  Is  he  a  '  branch  ingrafted 
into  Christ'?  Are  all  his  'sins  forgiven'?  In  other 
words,  is  he  a  believer  in  Jesus  Christ  ?  You  say — No, 
it  is  absurd  to  think  of  such  a  thing.  Then,  I  reply, 
your  baptism  is  a  falsehood — for  it  is  designed  to  signify 
and  seal  these  things,  which,  in  this  subject,  do  not  and 
cannot  exist.  To  a  believer  in-  Christ,  baptism  has  all 
this  significancy ;  but  to  an  unconscious  babe  it  can 
have  none  at  all.  There  is  not,  in  fact,  in  your  minds, 
the  slightest  suspicion  that  the  child  is  born  again  and 
ingrafted  into  Christ ;  and  yet  you  say  to  the  world,  that 
this  ordinance  is  designed  to  signify  and  seal  the  fact 
that  such  is  actually  the  case. 

"7s  it  no  harm  thus,  in  the  house  of  God,  as  a  religious 
act,  and  in  the  very  name  of  Jesus,  to  proclaim  such  prac 
tical  falsehoods  to  the  world?" 

"  I  declare,  I  had  never  thought  of  it  in  that  light  be 
fore.  Have  you  any  other  charge  to  make  against  it  ?" 

"  Yes ;  I  say,  in  the  next  place,  that  the  baptism  of 
an  infant  is  an  act  of  high-handed  rebellion  against  the 
Son  of  God." 

Mrs.  Jones  and  Mrs.  Ernest  both  lifted  up  their  hands 
in  utter  astonishment.  The  former  looked  at  him  as 
though  she  expected  to  see  him  drop  down  dead  after 
making  what  seemed  to  her  such  an  impious  announce 
ment. 

"  That  is  the  most  astounding  statement,"  said  the 
Professor.  "  But  I  know  you  would  not  make  it,  unless 
you  thought  you  had  the  evidence  to  sustain  it." 

"  What  1"  said  Mrs.  Jones,  "  The  evidence  to  prove 
that  it  is  wicked! — positively  wicked!  to  baptize  a 
child ;  an  act  of  rebellion  ! — high-handed  rebellion  1 
Well,  I  will  try  to  be  quiet,  just  to  see  what  the 


TIIEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

m 
f 

man  can  say.  Go  on,  Mr.  Courtney ;  wo  are  all  atten 
tion." 

"  Yes,"  resumed  Mr.  C.,  "  I  have  said  it ;  and  I  will 
prove  that  it  is  not  only  rebellion,  but  rebellion  attended 
with  such  circumstances  as  mark  it  with  a  character 
of  peculiar  malignancy.  Not  only  a  sin,  but  a  terrible 
sin ;  most  flagrant  in  itself,  and  most  terrific  in  its  con 
sequences  to  the  church  and  to  the  world." 

"  Really"  said  Mrs.  Jones,  "  I  am  curious  to  know 
how  you  will  make  it  out." 

"You  know,"  said  Mr.  C.,  "that  you  Presbyterians 
are  accustomed  to  count  some  requirements  of  Christ 
as  essential,  and  some  as  non-essential — or,  at  least,  less 
essential  than  others.  Now  when  Christ  came  into  the 
world,  one  great  object,  if  not  the  great  object  of  his 
mission,  was  to  establish  his  visible  church.  He  set  it 
up  himself.  He  instructed  his  disciples  carefully  in  the 
nature  of  its  laws,  and  especially  those  organic  or  con 
stitutional  laws  which  lie  at  the  very  foundation  of  the 
whole  superstructure.  To  these  laws  especially  he  must 
have  attached  great  importance.  Willful  disobedience 
to  these  fundamental  rules,  which  regulated  and  fixed 
the  very  nature  of  the  visible  kingdom  he  established, 
must  have  been  regarded  by  him  as  a  rebellion  of  no 
common  order.  Now  the  most  important  of  these  fun 
damental  rules  was  that  which  fixed  the  terms  of  mem 
bership  in  his  kingdom.  This  lay  at  the  foundation  of 
the  whole  business.  The  character,  the  influence,  the 
prosperity  of  his  new  kingdom,  must  depend  upon  the 
character  of  the  persons  of  whom  it  was  composed. 
Now  the  Jewish  kingdom,  though  it  had  in  it  much  of 
good,  and  was  a  beautiful  type  of  better  things  to  come, 
yet  it  had  included  more  of  the  evil  than  the  good.  In 
it  the  wicked  dwelt  in  the  land,  and  the  righteous  were 
among  them.  But  now  Christ  was  organizing  not  a 


EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  321 

temporal,  but  a  spiritual  kingdom.  His  dominion  was 
to  be  one  of  interior  rule — by  the  power  of  love.  The 
subjects  of  this  kingdom  were  to  be  converted  men  and 
women,  who  loved  God  and  lived  to  his  glory.  No  one 
could  belong  to  it,  as  he  told  Nicodemus,  who  had  not 
been  born  again.  This  was  his  church.  It  was  designed 
to  be  a  permanent  and  living  illustration  of  the  power 
and  the  purity  of  his  religion.  The  members  of  this 
church  were  to  be  his  living  epistles,  known  and  read 
of  all,  describing  the  nature  and  results  of  his  religion 
in  their  hearts  and  lives.  No  fact  is  more  clearly 
evident  than  this.  The  church  is  not  only  commanded 
to  be  holy — exhorted  to  be  holy — but  it  is  said  to  be 
holy,  and  addressed  as  though  it  was  thus  holy.  It  is 
always  and  everywhere  regarded  as  a  body  of  pro 
fessedly  converted  men  and  women.  As  many  as  were 
baptized  into  Christ  had  put  on  Christ.  They  were 
those  who  trusted  in  Christ.  They  walked  by  faith. 
They  lived,  but  not  they — it  was  Christ  that  lived  in 
them.  They  had  been  sinners,  but  were  called  to  be 
saints,  and  now  had  an  inheritance  among  them  that 
were  sanctified.  They  were  a  peculiar  people,  zealous 
of  good  works.  Not  of  the  world,  not  like  the  world, 
for  Christ  had  chosen  them  out  of  the  world.  Such  was 
the  church  as  he  established  it,  and  such  he  intended 
it  should  continue  to  the  end  of  time.  Now  to  secure 
to  it  this  character,  he  determined  that  none  should 
be  admitted  into  it  but  those  who  repented  of  sin,  and 
believed  on  him  with  saving  faith.  The  door  of  entrance 
into  this  church  was  by  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  Con 
sequently,  when  any  one  repented  and  believed,  and 
gave  evidence  that  he  was  born  again,  he  was  to  be  bap 
tized,  and  henceforth  counted  among  his  people.  The 
very  nature  of  the  church,  and  the  object  of  its  estab 
lishment,  required  that  no  others  should  ever  be  admitted. 


THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

»* 

How  then,  I  ask,  can  he  look  without  abhorrence  and 
indignation  upon  that  act,  in  which  a  minister  of  this 
church — claiming  to  act  by  his  authority — subverts  the 
very  foundation  of  his  church,  changes  its  nature,  and 
defeats  the  very  object  of  its  establishment,  by  intro 
ducing  into  it,  knowingly  and  willfully,  persons  who  are 
confessedly  not  penitents,  not  believers,  not  regenerate, 
but  the  children  of  wrath  even  as  others. 

"  If  baptism  converted  them — if  by  the  act  itself  they 
were  regenerated — there  would  be  some  excuse  for  this 
course ;  but  no  one  of  you  will  pretend  to  believe  that 
it  has  any  such  influence.  You  know  that  a  baptized 
child  grows  up  a  sinner,  just  as  his  unbaptized  brother 
does.  Doctors  of  Divinity  talk  about  such  things ;  but 
no  man  or  woman  of  common  sense  believes  that  the 
sprinkling  of  a  little  water  on  a  baby's  face  changes  its 
heart,  and  makes  it  a  new  creature  in  Christ  Jesus.  If 
it  is  introduced  by  this  act  into  Christ's  visible  church, 
it  comes  in  a  sinner,  as  it  is  born ;  it  comes  in  an  un 
converted,  impenitent,  and  unbelieving  sinner — just  such 
a  sinner  as  Christ  forbade  his  ministers  ever  to  intro 
duce.  And  now  what  is  the  consequence  ?  Let  us  look 
at  the  history  of  the  church.  It  is  enough  to  make  one 
•who  loves  Jesus  and  his  cause  weep  tears  of  blood,  to 
see  what  have  been  the  results  of  this  rebellious  depart 
ure  from  the  instructions  of  the  Master.  For  the  first 
two  or  three  hundred  years  the  church  remained  what 
Christ  intended.  It  was  a  body  of  professed  believers. 
All  history  accords  to  its  members  a  character  of  singu 
lar  uprightness  and  purity.  It  was  a  light  shining  in 
darkness.  But  when  infants,  instead  of  converts,  began 
to  be  introduced,  its  whole  character  was  changed.  Its 
spirituality  was  gone.  Its  very  ministers  were  worldly 
men,  contending  for  wealth,  and  place,  and  power.  In 
the  course  of  a  few  generations,  it  had,  like  the  national 


EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  323 

churches  of  Europe  of  the  present  day,  swallowed  up 
the  world.  All  the  villainy  and  depravity  of  the  land 
was  in  the  church,  or  in  that  establishment  that  called 
itself  the  church  of  Jesus  Christ.  No  Pagan,  not  even 
the  tiger-hearted  Nero  himself,  was  so  cruel  in  his  per 
secution  of  the  Christians,  as  this  body  of  baptized 
infants  became  when  it  grew  up  to  manhood,  and  was 
invested  with  the  power  to  kill.  Nothing  which  the  most 
infernal  hatred  could  suggest,  and  the  most  diabolical 
ingenuity  could  invent,  was  thought  too  hard  for  these 
baptized  ones  to  inflict  upon  those  who  professed  faith 
in  Christ,  yet  would  not  conform  to  their  newly  intro 
duced  rites  and  ceremonies.  The  most  bitter  and  re 
lentless  persecution  was  directed  especially  against  those 
who  denied  infant  baptism.  This  has  continued  through 
every  age.  It  has  not  been  confined  to  the  Roman 
Catholics.  It  has  been  practiced  by  all  the  so-called 
churches  that  received  infant  members  (your  own  in 
cluded)  whenever  and  wherever  they  have  been  able  to 
obtain  the  power.  The  world  has  been  deluged  with  the 
blood  of  the  saints,  shed  by  these  members  of  the  church, 
whom  men,  professing  to  be  his  ministers,  have,  in  his 
name,  though  against  his  authority,  introduced  in  their 
infancy.  Now  I  say,  the  act  which  thus  subverts  the 
very  nature  of  the  church  of  Christ,  and  leads  to  such 
terrific  consequences,  is  no  common  sin.  Such  perver 
sion  of  the  very  fundamental  law  of  his  church  is  no 
common  rebellion.  It  is  a  great  and  terrible  crime.  It 
has  led  to  great  and  terrible  results  even  in  the  present 
world.  Its  consequences,  even  here,  have  been  so  ter 
rific,  that  our  very  hearts  shudder  but  to  think  of  them  ; 
what  they  may  be  in  the  eternal  world,  we  cannot  con 
ceive. 

"  But  I  will  go  further.     I  said  '  the  baptism  of  an 
infant  was  a  sin — an  act  of  high-handed  rebellion  against 


324  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

•f 

God. '  I  have  proved  it.  I  will  now  say  even  more  than 
this.  Infant  baptism  is  impious — it  is  an  act  of  sacri 
lege." 

"  Be  careful,  Mr.  Courtney,  be  careful !"  exclaimed 
Mrs.  Jones.  "  This  is  a  solemn  subject.  You  should 
not  thoughtlessly  make  use  of  words  which  convey  such 
horrible  impressions." 

"  I  am  careful,  Mrs.  Jones.  I  have  chosen  these  words 
deliberately,  because  they  are  the  only  words  that  will 
fully  express  my  meaning.  I  mean  to  say  that  it  is 
impious  for  a  professed  minister  of  Jesus  Christ  to  stand 
up  in  the  presence  of  the  world,  and  in  HIS  name,  and 
by  HIS  authority,  perform,  as  a  solemn  and  sacred  or 
dinance  of  HIS  religion,  an  act  which  HE  NEVER  COM 
MANDED  OR  AUTHORIZED  !  I  regard  it  as  a  fixed  fact, 
that  there  is  no  such  commandment  or  authority.  We 
have  been  searching  for  it  carefully ;  we  cannot  find  it. 
It  is  not  in  the  book.  And  now  the  question  comes  up 
— '  Even  if  it  be  not  commanded,  what  harm  is  there  in 
it?'  This  is  the  question  we  are  endeavoring  to  answer. 
I  say,  If  God  has  not  commanded  it  or  authorized  it,  then 
to  perform  it  as  an  ordinance  of  HIS  religion,  in  HIS 
name,  and  by  HIS  professed  authority,  is  an  act  of  impi 
ous  sacrilege  !  It  can  be  nothing  less.  I  know  your 
preachers  do  not  so  intend  it ;  I  know  that  they  would 
shudder  at  the  very  thought.  They  verily  believe  they 
have  the  authority.  They  do  it  ignorantly,  as  Paul  per 
secuted  the  church.  But  though  their  ignorance  may, 
in  a  degree,  excuse  their  conduct,  it  does  not  change  the 
nature  of  the  act.  And  for  one  who  has  studied  the 
subject,  who  has  looked  for  the  authority  and  failed  to 
find  it,  as  we  have,  for  such  a  one  thus,  in  the  name  of 
God,  to  do  what  God  has  not  required,  must  require  a 
degree  of  temerity  which  I  trust  few  of  the  professed 
ministers  of  Christ  possess." 


EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  525 

"  I  declare,  Mr.  Courtney,  it  fills  me  with  a  sort  of 
horror  to  hear  you  talk.  I  am  almost  sorry  I  insisted 
on  your  saying  any  thing  about  this  subject.  I  don't 
and  can't  believe  that  what  you  say  is  true.  And  yet  I 
shall  never  be  able  again  to  see  an  infant  baptized  with 
out  a  feeling  of  terror." 

"  But  why  can't  you  believe  that  I  tell  the  truth  ? 
Have  I  not  proved  every  position  by  the  Word  of 
God?" 

"  Oh,  as  to  that,  any  body  can  prove  almost  any  thing 
they  please  by  the  Scriptures.  Unitarians,  and  Uni- 
versalists,  and  Methodists,  and  Episcopalians,  and  all 
sorts  of  people,  find  plenty  of  proof  in  the  Bible  for  all 
they  teach." 

"  Then  how  are  God's  people  to  know  what  he  requires 
of  them?" 

"  Well,  I  don't  see  as  we  can  know  with  any  cer 
tainty.  I  have  been  raised  a  Presbyterian,  and  taught 
that  they  were  right ;  and  I  believe  I  had  as  soon  risk 
my  soul  on  their  faith  as  any  other.  I  don't  see  as  I 
need  to  give  myself  much  trouble  about  it." 

"  You  do  not  deny,  Mrs.  Jones,  that  you  ought  to 
obey  God  rather  than  man,  and  that  the  Scriptures  are 
a  perfect  and  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ?" 

"  Oh,  no,  I  grant  that ;  but  the  difficulty  is,  that  I 
can't  understand  just  what  they  teach.  If  I  could  know 
what  they  require,  I  must  believe  and  do  it.  But  Mr. 
Johnson  tells  me  one  thing,  and  you  tell  me  another, 
and  the  Methodist  tells  me  another ;  and  between  you 
all,  I  don't  know  really  what  I  must  believe  or  do." 

"  I  will  tell  you,  then.  God  will  hold  you  responsible 
for  your  own  faith  and  practice.  You  are  not,  therefore, 
to  rely  on  me,  or  the  Methodists,  or  on  Mr.  Johnson, 
but  you  are  to  go  to  the  Bible  for  yourself.  If  there  is 
any  command  to  baptize  infants  there,  you  can  find  it, 
28 


326  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

»* 

and  you  can  read  and  understand  it  as  well  as  a  Doctor 
of  Divinity.  Do  not  take  for  granted  that  what  they 
say  or  what  I  say  is  true,  but  search  the  Scriptures  for 
yourself.  Make  use  of  all  the  helps  you  can,  but  don't 
let  any  one  convince  you  that  any  doctrine  is  taught,  or 
any  practice  required,  by  the  Word,  till  you  can  see  it  in 
the  Word.  You  will  not  find  the  teachings  of  the  Scrip 
tures  to  be  either  doubtful  or  contradictory  when  you 
go  to  them,  and  are  willing  to  believe  and  practice  just 
what  they  teach.  Doctors  of  Divinity  may  contradict 
each  other  and  themselves,  but  God's  Word  is  not  a  book 
of  doubtful  oracles.  It  speaks  plainly ;  it  speaks  de 
cidedly  ;  and  it  speaks  always  the  same  thing.  Try  it 
yourself  with  reference  to  this  subject.  Your  pastor 
tells  you  that  he  has  authority  in  the  New  Testament  to 
baptize  infants.  Ask  him  to  show  it  to  you.  If  it  is 
there,  he  cau  find  it.  You  can  see  it  as  well  as  he  can. 
He  will,  perhaps,  refer  you  to  the  commission,  Go  bap 
tize,  etc. ;  but  you  will  say,  this  is  only  a  commission  to 
baptize  believers.  It  does  not  say  a  word  about  believ 
ers  and  their  children,  but  only  about  believers.  He 
will  then  remind  you  that  Jesus  said,  Suffer  the  little 
ones  to  come  unto  me,  etc.  You  will  reply,  they  did  not 
come  to  be  baptized,  but  to  be  prayed  for  :  'And  he  laid 
his  hands  on  them,  and  departed.'  This  is  good  author 
ity  to  pray  for  children,  and  to  devote  them  to  God  by 
faith,  and  seek  his  blessing  on  them,  but  none  for  bap 
tizing  them.  He  will  then  remind  you  that  Peter  says, 
'  the  promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  children.'  You  will 
reply,  this  is  a  promise  of  the  '  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,' 
not  of  baptism ;  and,  moreover,  it  is  limited  to  those 
'  whom  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call ;'  and  God  does  not 
call  unconscious  babes.  He  will  then  tell  you,  that  '  the 
unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  believing  husband, 
etc. :  else  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they 


EIGHTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  327 

holy.'  To  this,  your  good  sense  would  reply,  that  there 
is  here  not  a  word  about  baptism  ;  and  if  the  child  is  to 
be  baptized  because  it  is  holy,  so  ought  the  infidel  hus 
band  and  the  infidel  wife,  for  they  are  also  sanctified  or 
holy.  He  will  then  seek  to  find  some  example.  He  will 
tell  you,  that  there  were  a  number  of  families  baptized, 
and  it  is  almost  certain  there  must  have  been  infant 
children  in  some  of  them.  You  turn  to  each  place,  and 
find  that  they  who  were  baptized  are  the  same  who  are 
said  to  have  heard  the  Word,  believed  in  God,  rejoiced 
in  God,  spake  with  tongues,  glorified  God,  ministered  to 
the  saints,  and,  in  the  case  of  Lydia's  family,  are  called 
brethren.  Finding  neither  precept  nor  example  in  the 
]Sfew  Testament,  he  will  turn  to  the  Old,  and  tell  you 
about  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  the  seal  of  which 
was  circumcision,  and  was  applied  to  the  children.  Now, 
he  will  say,  this  covenant  includes  Christians  too ;  for 
Paul  says,  All  that  believe  are  the  children  of  believing 
Abraham.  And  if  his  children  by  nature  were  circum 
cised,  his  children  by  faith  must  be  baptized.  To  this 
you  will  reply,  true,  his  children  by  faith  are  to  be  bap 
tized,  but  who  are  they  ?  Paul  says,  they  are  believers, 
not  the  infant  offspring  of  believers.  You  will  say,  fur 
ther,  the  Jewish  infants  were  circumcised  because  God 
expressly  commanded  it  to  be  done.  But  God  never 
commanded  Christians  to  baptize  their  infants.  On  the 
contrary,  he  directed  only  the  penitent,  the  believing, 
the  regenerate,  to  be  baptized,  which  expressly  excludes 
infants;  and  not  a  single  infant  ever  was  baptized  during 
the  period  of  which  we  have  the  history  in  the  Scrip 
tures.  He  has  nothing  more  to  offer.  This  is  the  sub 
stance  and  the  sum  of  what  he  calls  Scriptural  authority. 
Dare  you  now,  with  this  light  in  your  mind,  consider 
the  baptism  of  an  infant  an  ordinance  of  God  ?  I  say, 
then,  try  it  for  yourself.  Search  the  Scriptures,  as  the 


328  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

» 

Bereans  did,  and  see  if  these  things  are  so.  I  do  not 
ask  you  to  take  my  word  for  one  solitary  fact  or  circum 
stance.  Go  to  the  Book.  Go  not  to  cavil,  but  to  learn. 
Go  not  to  twist  an  argument  out  of  it,  but  to  ascertain 
your  duty.  Study  it ;  pray  over  it.  Don't  rest  till  your 
mind  is  satisfied.  If  you  can't  find  infant  baptism  in  the 
Word,  you  may  take  it  for  granted  it  is  not  there,  even 
though  all  the  Doctors  of  Divinity  in  Christendom 
assert  the  contrary.  If  you  do  find  it,  bring  the  Book, 
and  show  it  to  us  benighted  Baptists,  and  we  will  prac 
tice  it ;  for  we  do  earnestly  desire,  if  we  know  our  own 
hearts,  to  '  do  whatever  Christ  commands  us.'  If  you 
find  it,  it  will  be  your  duty  to  bring  it  to  our  notice ;  for 
in  that  case  we  are  in  most  woful  error.  If  you  are 
right,  we  are  most  fearfully  wrong.  If  God  has  com 
manded  us  to  baptize  our  infants,  we  are  living  in  open 
and  avowed  rebellion.  But  we  desire  to  obey ;  and  if 
you  will  show  us  our  error,  so  far  from  growing  angry, 
we  will  thank  you  for  the  care  that  you  show  for  our 
good." 

"  There  is  much  in  what  you  have  said,"  replied  Pro 
fessor  Jones,  "that  strikes  me  with  amazement.  I  can 
not  deny,  that  infant  baptism  is  in  opposition  to  the 
Word  of  God  ;  but  yet,  I  have  never  conceived  of  it  as 
the  terrible  thing  you  have  represented  it.  I  see,  how 
ever,  that  it  must  be  even  so.  If  it  does  not  introduce 
people  into  the  church,  it  is  a  falsehood  on  its  very  face ; 
for  this  is  what  it  pretends  to  do.  If  it  does  introduce 
them,  then  it  evidently  subverts  the  very  foundation  of 
the  church,  as  a  body  of  believers.  And  if  God  has  not 
commanded  or  authorized  it,  it  must,  indeed,  be  im 
pious  to  do  it  in  his  name,  as  though  he  had.  I  cannot 
deny  this;  but  you  made  some  statements  concerning 
the  results  of  its  introduction,  which  I  do  not  feel  dis 
posed  to  receive  solely  on  your  assertion." 


EIGHTH    NIGHTS   STUDY.  329 

"  My  dear  sir,  I  don't  desire  you  to  receive  any  thing 
on  my  assertion.  What  I  do  not  prove,  I  beg  you  will 
consider  as  though  I  did  not  say.  I  don't  intend  to 
make  any  assertion,  that  I  cannot  sustain  by  the  very 
best  of  testimony." 

"  You  said  that  infant  baptism  was  not  introduced 
in  the  time  of  the  first  Christians,  nor  until  several  hun 
dred  years  after  Christ.  And  that  all  churches,  both 
Protestant  and  Catholic,  who  had  embraced  it,  had  per 
secuted  the  saints  whenever  and  wherever  they  pos 
sessed  the  power.  All  this  is  quite  at  variance  with 
what  I  have  always  regarded  as  the  truth.  I  do  not 
deny  that  it  is  so,  but  I  cannot  believe  it  without  the 
evidence." 

Mr.  Courtney  glanced  at  the  clock,  as  he  replied : 

"  It  is  now  near  bedtime.  We  will  not  have  time  to 
night  ;  but  at  any  time  you  may  suggest,  I  will  convince 
you  that  I  did  not  speak  without  reason.  I  will  prove 
to  you,  by  the  testimony  of  the  ancient  Fathers,  by  the 
testimony  of  your  own  most  eminent  historians  and 
divines,  that  what  I  said  is  strictly  and  entirely  true. 
I  will  show  you,  that  infant  baptism  was  introduced  in 
the  same  way,  and  by  the  same  sort  of  authority,  that 
pouring  and  sprinkling  were — only  that  it  began  at  a 
somewhat  earlier  day.  I  will  show  you,  too,  what  were 
the  consequences  to  the  true  believers,  who  refused  to 
sanction  the  innovation — how  they  were  driven  out  to 
dwell  in  caves  and  dens  of  the  earth — how  they  were 
tortured  and  tormented — hunted  like  wild  beasts ;  and 
that  not  a  few  hundreds,  or  thousands,  but  millions 
have  gained  a  martyr's  crown — slain  for  the  testimony 
of  Jesus ;  not  by  Pagans ;  not  by  infidels ;  not  by  the 
people  of  the  world ;  but  by  the  members  of  the  (so- 
called)  churches  of  Jesus  Christ,  made  members  in  their 


330  THEODOSTA    ERNEST. 

infancy  by  this  '  blessed'  ordinance  of  infant  baptism. 
Where  shall  we  meet  ?" 

"  Oh,  come  back  here,"  said  Mrs.  Jones.  "  I  begin  to 
feel  a  sort  of  fearful  interest  in  your  strange  teachings ; 
something — if  you  will  pardon  the  comparison — like  I 
would  expect  to  feel  in  the  dying  speech  of  some 
outlawed  wretch,  denouncing,  on  the  very  scaffold, 
all  that  good  men  hold  dear  and  sacred.  I  do  not  mean 
any  disrespect,  but  I  cannot  think  of  any  thing  else 
which  will  so  well  describe  my  emotions.  I  shudder 
while  you  talk,  to  think  that  you  should  dare  to  speak 
of  one  of  the  most  beautiful  and  holy  rites  of  our 
religion  as  of  a  deadly  sin ;  and  yet  I  want  to  hear  all 
that  you  have  to  say.  Sister  Ernest  and  Theodosia 
will  come  over  with  you  again  to-morrow  night." 

"  So  be  it,  then.    We  will  meet  here  to-morrow  night  " 


THE   NINTH   NIGHT'S  STUDY. 


OF  THE  TIME  AND  MANNER 


IN     WHICH 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  INFANTS 
WAS     SUBSTITUTED     BY     MEN 


FOR     THE 


BAPTISM    OF    BELIEVERS, 


WHICH  CHRIST  COMMANDED. 


NINTH  NIGHTS  STUDY. 


was  no  one  of  the  company  that  assern- 
bled  at  the  Professor's  house  on  Tuesday  even- 
ing,  to  continue  this  discussion,  who  looked  so 
anxiously  for  the  time  of  meeting,  as  did  Mrs. 
Jones.  The  idea  that  an  act  which  she  had 
always  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  beautiful 
and  holy  of  all  the  rites  pertaining  to  our  holy 
religion,  was  really  no  part  of  that  religion,  but  in 
fact  directly  opposed  to  it,  and  forbidden  by  it,  had 
haunted  her  mind  continually  ever  since  the  last 
night's  conversation.  She  had  awakened  her  husband 
at  midnight,  to  tell  him  that  she  should  ever  after  be 
afraid  to  see  an  infant  child  baptized  —  and  all  the  day  she 
had  been  anxiously  looking  at  the  arguments  of  Mr. 
Courtney,  as  she  called  them  up  one  after  another  in 
her  memory,  but  could  see  no  fallacy  in  the  reasoning, 
though  it  led  to  what  she  considered  such  fearful  con 
clusions.  One  reflection,  however,  gave  her  some  com 
fort.  Infant  baptism  could  not  be  a  sin,  otherwise  good 
men  could  not  have  practiced  it.  She  was  sure,  therefore, 
that  there  must  be  some  defect  in  his  reasoning,  though 
she  could  not  see  it. 

And  when  they  had  come  together,  she  began  the 
conversation  by  asking  Mr.  Courtney  if  he  had  not 
said  that  he  regarded  Presbyterian  and  other  Pedo- 
baptist  ministers  as  good  and  pkms  men  ? 

"  Certainly  ;  I  said  that  I  knew  some  such.  Men  of 
God,  whom  I  love  as  my  brethren  in  the  Gospel.  And 
I  know  personally  of  no  one  among  them  whom  I  would 
be  willing  to  condemn  as  being  a  worse  man  than  myself." 

(333) 


334  -  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

»" 

"  But  how  can  you  say  that,  Mr.  Courtney,  when  you 
know  that  they  all  practice  infant  baptism,  and  teach 
others  to  do  so,  which  you  say  is  not  only  a  sin,  but  a 
most  grievous  sin :  not  only  sin,  but  impious  sacrilege  ? 
It  seems  to  me  you  are  the  most  inconsistent  man  I 
ever  heard  talk." 

"  Will  you  permit  me,  madam,  to  answer  your  ques 
tion  by  asking  several  others  ?  Were  Luther  and  Cal 
vin  and  the  Reformers  good  and  holy  men  ?" 

"  Of  course  they  were,  Mr.  Courtney.  No  one  has 
ever  doubted  that." 

"  Was  Archbishop  Cranmer,  who  suffered  martyrdom 
for  his  religion,  under  Mary  of  England,  a  good  and 
holy  man  ?" 

"  Certainly;  he  must  have  been." 

"  Were  our  Puritan  Fathers,  who  settled  New  Eng 
land,  good  and  holy  men,  deserving  our  reverential  and 
affectionate  rememberance  for  their  Christian  principle, 
which  led  them  to  sacrifice  all  for  a  conscience  void 
of  offence  ?" 

"  Most  assuredly  they  were ;  but  what  has  that  to  do 
with  my  question  ?" 

"  You  will  see,  madam,  when  I  have  asked  one  more. 
Is  it  not  a  great  and  fearful  sin  to  persecute  and  take 
the  lives  of  men  for  their  religious  faith  ?" 

"  Of  course  it  is ;  and  no  good  man  will  do  it." 

"  And  yet,  madam,  our  Pilgrim  Fathers  persecuted 
the  Quakers  and  the  Baptists,  and  condemned  them  to 
banishment  and  death  Cranmer,  before  he  was  burnt, 
had  been  very  officious  and  energetic  in  bringing  Bap 
tists  to  the  stake.  (See  NeaUs  History  of  the  Puritans). 
Calvin  procured  the  condemnation  of  Servetus  for  his 
religion,  and  Luther  urged  the  princes  of  his  country 
to  persecute  those  who  could  not  conform  to  his 
opinions.  You  see,  therefore,  that  good  and  pious  men 


Nr\Tii  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  335 

may  be  led  by  their  very  piety  (under  mistaken  notions 
of  duty),  to  do  things  which  are  most  fearfully  wrong 
and  sinful.  Paul  verily  thought  he  was  doing  God 
service  when  he  killed  the  followers  of  Jesus  ;  but  his 
mistake  did  not  make  the  action  right.  It  was  still  a 
most  awful  sin.  He  did  it  ignorantly,  and  God  forgave 
him.  So  he  will  forgive  your  Pedobaptist  brethren 
who  in  their  ignorance  imagine  they  are  obeying  him  in 
baptizing  little  children  into  his  church.  But  the  act 
is  sinful,  terribly  sinful,  nevertheless.  You  are  to  take 
God's  Word,  not  the  example  of  those  whom  you  con 
sider  holy  men,  as  your  standard  of  right." 

"  If  I  did  not  misunderstand  you,"  said  Uncle  Jones, 
"  you  told  us  last  night,  that  infant  baptism  was  utterly 
unknown  in  the  time  of  the  first  Christians.  Now  this 
is  altogether  at  variance  with  what  our  ministers  have 
always  taught  us  to  believe.  I  am  sure  that  they  have 
labored  sedulously  to  make  the  impression  on  our 
minds,  that  from  the  very  times  of  the  Apostles  till 
about  six  hundred  years  ago,  no  one  had  ever  questioned 
that  infants  should  be  baptized.  I  am  sure  that  I  have 
been  told  again  and  again,  from  the  pulpit  and  in 
private  conversation,  that  it  was  the  united  testimony 
of  all  the  Fathers  that  infant  baptism  was  received  from 
the  Apostles,  and  that  we  not  only  have  no  account  of 
the  time  and  manner  of  its  introduction,  but  no  history 
of  any  period  of  the  church  when  it  was  not  universally 
received  and  practiced.'' 

"  Very  likely ,"  replied  Mr.  Courtney.  "Doctors  of 
Divinity  often  deal  in  just  such  sweeping  assertions. 
The  same  men  who  assure  you  that  the  New  Testament 
abounds  with  proof  of  infant  baptism,  though  no  man 
living  or  dead  has  ever  been  able  to  show  for  it  a  single  pre 
cept  or  example,  can  well  afford  to  make  just  such  state 
ments  about  history.  And  I  say  to  them  in  this,  as  in  the 


336  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

* 

other  case,  If  there  be  any  record  of  infant  baptism  in 
the  first  ages  of  the  church,  you  can  show  it,  and  I  can 
see  it.  Your  mere  assertions  are  not  worth  a  straw — 
bring  in  your  proof." 

"But  have  they  no  such  proof?"  asked  Mrs.  Jones. 
"  Surely  the  ministers  of  our  church  are  as  good  and  as 
truthful  as  those  of  any  church,  and  would  not  make 
such  assertions  without  good  and  sufficient  authority." 

"  I  will  answer  your  question,  madam,  by  referring 
you  to  the  writings  of  some  of  the  most  eminent 
ecclesiastical  historians,  who  were  Pedobaptists,  like 
yourselves,  but  who  would  not  stoop  to  falsify  history  to 
promote  the  interests  of  a  creed.  Let  me  ask  your 
attention,  and  yours  especially,  Professor  Jones,  to  the 
testimony  of  a  very  remarkable  class  of  these  witnesses. 
Soon  after  the  He  formation,  a  project  was  set  on  foot 
by  the  Pedobaptist  Protestants  of  Germany,  to  collect 
and  embody  in  a  permanent  form  all  the  known  and 
reliable  facts  in  the  history  of  the  early  Christian 
churches.  A  great  number  of  the  most  learned  and 
eminent  men  of  Europe  engaged  in  the  work.  They  had 
access  to  all  the  stores  of  ancient  learning,  and  were  fully 
competent  to  explore  and  appropriate  them.  Lutheran 
princes  and  powerful  nobles  were  patrons  of  the  work, 
and  neither  money  nor  labor  was  spared  to  make  it  a 
faithful  picture  of  the  ancient  churches.  It  proposed 
to  give  the  history  of  each  century  by  itself ;  and  as  it 
was  published  at  Magdeburg,  its  authors  are  commonly 
called  the  'Magdeburg  Centuriators.'  It  was  executed 
with  great  care,  and  has  ever  since  its  publication  been 
regarded  as  one  of  the  most  faithful  and  accurate  records 
of  early  church  history.  Now,  I  want  you  to  remember 
that  there  was  not  a  single  Baptist  among  these  men ; 
and  then  observe  their  language,  which  is  as  follows : 
'  They  [the  Apostles]  baptized  only  the  adult  or  aged, 


NINTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  33T 

whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whereof  we  have  instances  in 
Acts  ii.,  via.,  x.,  xvi.,  and  xix.  chapters.  As  to  the  bap 
tism  of  infanta  we  have  no  example.  As  to  the  manner 
of  baptizing,  it  was  by  dipping  or  plunging  into  the 
water,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
according  to  the  allusions  contained  in  the  6th  of  Romans 
and  the  2d  of  Colossians.'  Thus  they  speak  of  the  first 
century ;  and  of  the  second  century  they  say :  '  It  does 
not  appear  from  any  approved  authors  that  there  was 
any  change  or  variation  from  the  former  century  in  re 
gard  to  baptism.' 

"  The  learned  and  acute  Erasmus,  writing  about  the 
same  time,  says,  in  his  Notes  on  the  6th  of  Romans  :  '  It 
is  nowhere  expressed  in-  the  apostolic  writings  that  they 
baptized  children.' 

"John  Calvin,  the  founder  of  your  Presbyterian 
Church,  says :  '  It  is  nowhere  expressed  by  the  Evangel 
ists  that  any  one  infant  was  baptized.' 

"  Ludovicus  Vives,  a  name  of  high  historical  author 
ity,  says :  '  None  of  old  was  wont  to  be  baptized  but  in 
grown  age,  and  who  desired  it,  and  understood  what  it 
was.' 

"  Dr.  Taylor,  of  the  Church  of  England,  says :  '  It  is 
against  the  perpetual  analogy  of  Christ's  doctrine  to 
baptize  infants ;  for  besides  that,  Christ  never  gave  any 
precept  to  baptize  them,  nor  ever  himself  or  his  Apos 
tles  (that  did  appear)  did  baptize  any  of  them.  .  All 
that  he  or  his  Apostles  said  concerning  it,  requires  the 
previous  dispositions  of  baptism,  of  which  infants  are 
not  capable.' — Liber.  Proph.,  p.  289. 

"  Dr.  Mosheim,  who  is  universally  known  and  re 
garded  as  high  Pedobaptist  authority,  says,  in  his 
Ecclesiastical  History  of  the  first  century :  '  No  persons 
were  admitted  to  baptism  but  such  as  had  been  pre 
viously  instructed  into  the  principal  points  of  Chris- 
29  :  • 


338  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

f 

tianity,  and  had  also  given  satisfactory  proof  of  pious 
dispositions  and  upright  intentions.'  Of  the  second 
century  he  says :  '  The  sacrament  of  baptism  was,  during 
this  century,  administered  publicly  twice  a  year  at  the 
festivals  of  Easter  and  Whitsuntide.  The  persons  to  be 
baptized,  after  they  had  repeated  the  creed,  confessed 
and  renounced  their  sins,  particularly  the  devil  and  his 
pompous  allurements,  were  immersed  under  water,  and 
received  into  Christ's  kingdom  by  a  solemn  invocation.' 
Of  course  they  were  not  unconscious  infants. 

"  Neander,  another  of  your  own  historians,  who  has  a 
World-wide  reputation,  says  expressly :  '  Baptism  was 
administered  at  first  only  to  adults,  as  men  were  accus 
tomed  to  conceive  of  baptism  and  faith  as  strictly  con 
nected.  We  have  all  reason  for  not  deriving  infant 
baptism  from  Apostolic  institution,  and  the  recognition 
of  it  (which  followed  somewhat  later)  as  an  Apostolical 
tradition,  serves  to  confirm  this  hypothesis.' 

"  Coleman,  another  of  your  own  writers,  and  a  citizen 
of  our  own  country,  says :  '  Though  the  necessity  of  in 
fant  baptism  was  asserted  in  Africa  and  Egypt  in  the 
beginning  of  the -third  century,  it  was  even  to  the  end 
of  the  fourth  by  no  means  generally  observed,  least  of 
all  in  the  Eastern  Church,  and  it  finally  became  a  general 
ecclesiastical  institution  in  the  age  of  Augustine,'  which 
you  know  was  at  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century. 

"  Now  tell  me  what  sort  of  consciences  your  ministers 
must  have  when  they  assert,  in  the  face  of  such  testi 
mony  as  this,  from  their  own  most  eminent  historians, 
that  infants  were  always  considered  right  subjects  for 
baptism !  But  this  is  not  all.  We  have  positive  proof 
that  Constantino  and  Gregory,  and  a  great  multitude  of 
eminent  men  whose  history  is  recorded,  and  who  are 
known  to  have  been  born  of  Christian  parents  and 
reared  in  Christian  communities,  were  yet  not  baptized 


NINTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  339 

till  they  had  made  their  profession  of  faith  in  mature 
years — while  there  is  not  on  record  a  single,  solitary 
instance  of  the  baptism  of  a  child  till  the  year  of  our 
Lord  three  hundred  and  seventy,  and  that  was  the 
son  of  the  Emperor  Yallens,  which  was  thought  to  be 
dying,  and  was  baptized  by  the  command  of  his  majesty, 
who  swore  he  would  not  be  contradicted ;  and  moreover, 
this  was  not  a  little  infant,  but  a  boy  of  six  years  old.— - 
See  fiobinson's  Hist. 

"  Now,  if  in  the  face  of  this  testimony  they  say  that 
infant  baptism  was  practiced,  let  them  show  the  proof. 
Let  them  bring  a  single  case.  Let  them  prove  their 
own  most  eminent  ecclesiastical  historians  to  be  false 
witnesses,  and  we  will  attach  all  due  importance  to  their 
statements." 

"But,  surely,  Mr.  Courtney,"  replied  Mrs.  Ernest, 
"  our  ministers  cannot  be  acquainted  with  these  testi 
monies." 

"  It  is  their  own  fault  then,"  said  he.  "These  books 
are  in  their  libraries — they  quote  them,  on  other  sub 
jects — and  if  they  do  not  know  what  they  teach  on  this, 
it  is  because  they  willfully  close  their  eyes  to  the  light 
in  order  that  they  may  remain  in  ignorance." 

"  You  say,"  rejoined  Theodosia,  "that  these  writers, 
who  make  such  concessions,  are  Pedobaptists.  They  were 
members  of  churches  which  baptize  infants  by  sprink 
ling.  They  were  themselves  baptized  by  sprinkling  in 
their  infancy  ;  and  yet  they  state,  in  most  express  terms, 
that  it  was  not  so  commanded  by  Christ — it  was  not  so 
ordained  by  the  Apostles — and  nothing  of  the  sort  was 
practiced  by  the  first  Christians,  nor  for  several  hun 
dred  years.  How,  then,  could  they  conscientiously 
remain  even  for  a  day  in  their  church  connection  ?  I 
cannot  understand  what  sort  of  consciences  such  men 
have." 


340  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

»' 

"  Nor  can  I,  Miss  Ernest,  but  I  will  let  them  speak 
for  themselves.  The  learned  Curcellens  is  one  of  them, 
and  he  says :  '  Infant  baptism  was  not  known  in  the 
world  the  first  two  centuries  after  Christ.  In  the  third 
and  fourth  it  was  approved  by  few ;  but  at  length,  in  the 
fifth,  it  began  to  obtain  in  divers  places  ;  and  therefore,' 
he  continues,  '  we  Pedobaptists  observe  this  rite  indeed 
a's  an  ancient  custom,  but  not  as  an  Apostolic  institution. 
The  custom  of  baptizing  infants  did  not  begin  before 
the  third  century  after  Christ,  and  there  appears  not 
the  least  footstep  of  it  for  the  first  two  centuries.'  Or 
if  you  prefer  a  more  recent  exposition  of  their  reasons, 
take  Kitto's  Cyclopaedia  of  Biblical  Literature,  a  standard 
Pedobaptist  theological  work,  and  turn  to  page  287, 
vol.  2." 

"  I  have  the  book  on  the  table  here,"  said  Uncle 
Jones.  "  Here,  Theo.,  find  the  place  and  read.  Here  it 
is." 

'"Infant  baptism  was  established  neither  by  Christ 
nor  his  Apostles.  In  all  places  where  we  find  the  ne 
cessity  of  baptism  notified,  either  in  a  dogmatic  or  his 
torical  point  of  view,  it  is  evident  that  it  was  only  meant 
for  those  who  were  capable  of  comprehending  the  word 
preached,  and  of  being  converted  to  Christ  by  an  act  of 
their  own  will. 

"  'A  pretty  sure  testimony  of  its  non-existence  in  the 
days  of  the  Apostles,  may  be  inferred  from  1  Cor.  vii. 
14,  since  Paul  would  certainly  have  referred  to  the  bap 
tism  of  infants  for  their  holiness ;  but  even  in  later  days, 
several  teachers  of  the  church,  such  as  Tertullian  (De 
Bapt.)  and  others,  reject  this  custom.  Indeed,  his 
church  in  general  (that  of  North  Africa)  adhered  longer 
than  others  to  the  primitive  regulations.  Even  when 
the  baptism  of  infants  was  already  theoretically  derived 


NINTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  341 

from  the  Apostles,  its  practice  was,  nevertheless,  for  a 
long  time  confined  to  a  mature  age.' 

"  Did  you  not  say  that  the  author  of  this  work  was  a 
Pedobaptist,  Mr.  Courtney?" 

"  Certainly  I  did.  It  was  prepared  by  a  number  of 
very  learned  and  eminent  Pedobaptist  divines,  and  is 
regarded  by  Pedobaptists  as  a  standard  theological 
work." 

"Well,  I  must  say,  that  Pedobaptist  theological 
writers  are  strange  people,"  replied  Theodosia,  "  but  I 
will  read  on : — '  In  support  of  a  contrary  opinion  the 
advocates  [of  infant  baptism]  in  former  ages  (now  hardly 
any)  used  to  appeal  to  Matt.  xix.  14,  Suffer  little  chil 
dren,  etc. ;  but  their  strongest  argument  in  its  favor  is 
the  regulation  of  baptizing  all  the  members  of  a  house 
hold  or  family,  1  Cor.  xvi.  17;  Acts  viii.  8;  xvi.  33; 
but  in  none  of  these  instances  has  it  been  proved  that 
there  were  little  children  among  them.  And  even  sup 
posing  that  there  were,  there  was  no  necessity  for  ex 
cluding  them  from  baptism  in  plain  words,  since  such 
exclusion  was  understood  as  a  matter  of  course.' 

"  Surely,  Mr.  Courtney,  the  man  is  a  Baptist !" 

"Oh,  no,"  said  Mr.  Courtney;  "read  on.  You  will 
come  to  his  strong  reasons  presently."  She  read  on: 

"  '  Manjr  circumstances  conspired  early  to  introduce 
infant  baptism.  The  confusion  between  the  outward  and 
inward  conditions  of  baptism,  and  the  magical  effect  that 
was  attributed  to  it ;  confusion  of  thought  about  the 
visible  and  the  invisible  church ;  condemning  all  those 
who  did  not  belong  to  the  former ;  the  doctrine  of  the 
natural  corruption  of  man  so  closely  connected  with  the 
preceding  ;  and  finally  the  desire  of  distinguishing  Chris 
tian  children  from  the  Jewish  and  heathen,  and  of  com 
mending  them  more  effectually  to  the  care  of  the  Chris 
tian  community — all  these  circumstances,  and  many 


342  TIIEODOSTA    ERNEST.  „• 

more,  have  contributed  to  the  introduction  of  infant  bap 
tism  at  a  very  early  period.'" 

"  Now  we  will  come  to  his  reasons.  He  has  told  us 
that  it  is  not  in  the  Scriptures  ;  that  it  was  not  ordained 
by  Christ ;  that  it  was  not  known  to  the  Apostles ;  that 
it  was  the  offspring  of  that  error  which  attributed  a 
magical  influence  to  baptism,  and  to  the  mistaken  idea 
that  no  one  could  be  saved  without  it — together  with 
numerous  other  circumstances ;  and  now  read  on,  if  you 
please,  and  learn  the  reasons  why  he,  notwithstanding 
all  this,  is  a  Pedobaptist." 

"  '  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  baptism  of  children  is 
not  at  all  at  variance  with  the  principles  of  the  Christian 
religion,  after  what  has  been  observed  on  the  separation 
of  regeneration  and  baptism ;  for  since  it  cannot  be  de 
termined  when  the  former  begins  (the  real  test  of  its  ex 
istence  being  only  in  the  holiness  continued  to  the  end 
of  a  man's  life),  the  fittest  point  of  baptism  is  evidently 
the  beginning  of  life.'  'Nevertheless,  the  profession  of 
faith  is  still  needed  to  complete  it.  Confirmation,  or 
some  equivalent  observance,  is  therefore  a  very  impor 
tant  consummation.  The  fides  infantium  [faith  of 
infants]  is  an  absurd  assumption  of  which  the  Scriptures 
know  nothing.'  'On  the  other  hand,  the  baptized  child 
is  strongly  recommended  to  the  community  and  to  the 
Spirit  of  God  dwelling  therein,  becoming  the  careful  ob 
ject  of  the  education  and  holy  influence  of  the  church : 
1  Cor.  vii.  14.  Nature  and  experience  therefore  teach 
us  to  retain  the  baptism  of  infants  now  that  it  is  intro 
duced.'  " 

"  Oh,  yes,"  said  Mrs.  Jones,  "  I  always  feel  a  much 
greater  interest  in  children  that  have  been  baptized.  It 
is  such  a  blessed  privilege  to  bring  our  little  ones  to 
God,  and  dedicate  them  to  him  in  the  presence  of  all  his 
people." 


NINTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY. 

"  For  my  part,"  replied  Mr.  Courtney,  "  I  greatly  pre 
fer  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  to  '  nature  and  experience,' 
as  my  teachers  in  religion.  It  is,  indeed,  a  blessed 
privilege  to  be  allowed  to  dedicate  our  children  to  God ; 
and  for  doing  this,  we  have  full  authority  in  the  Word 
of  God.  We  are  to  dedicate  them  by  faith  and  prayer, 
and  bring  them  up  for  him.  But,  let  me  say  to  you,  in 
the  language  of  Dr.  Dwight,  one  of  the  most  eminent 
ministers  of  your  own  church:  'Nothing  is  a  privilege, 
in  the  religious  sense,  but  what  God  has  made  such;  and 
he  has  made  nothing  such,  except  in  his  own  way  and 
on  his  own  terms.  Baptism  is  a  privilege  when  admin* 
istered  and  received  in  the  manner  appointed  by  him, 
but  in  no  oilier.  When  this  ordinance  is  received  in  any 
other  manner,  it  is  plainly  no  obedience  to  any  command 
of  his,  and  therefore  has  no  promise — and,  let  me  add, 
no  encouragement  to  hope  for  a  blessing.'" — Dwight's 
Sermons,  vol.  iv.  p.  343. 

"lam  almost  afraid,"  said  Uncle  Jones,  "that  you 
will  think  me  captious ;  but  I  cannot  yet  feel  quite  satis 
fied  about  this  matter.  You  have,  indeed,  shown  very 
clearly,  that  many  very  eminent  historians  and  standard 
writers,  who,  it  is  well  known  to  all  the  world,  were 
Pedobaptists,  have  conceded — and,  indeed,  have  in  some 
sense  proved — that  infant  baptism  did  not  originate  till 
the  third  century,  or  later.  But  yet,  it  seems  to  me 
that  I  have  seen  quotations  from  the  early  fathers  them 
selves,  which  proved  that  baptism  of  infants  had  beep 
practiced  from  the  very  first.  Has  there  not  been  re 
cently  discovered  some  ancient  manuscript,  which  throws 
light  upon  this  subject  ?  I  am  sure  I  have  heard  some 
rumor  of  such  a  thing." 

"  You  are  not  at  all  mistaken,"  replied  Mr.  Courtney. 
"A  manuscript  of  Hyppolytus  was  found,  in  1842,  in  an 
Armenian  convent  on  Mount  Athos,  in  Turkey,  by 


844  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

Minoides  Minas,  a  Greek  scholar  of  celebrity,  who  was 
employed  at  the  time  by  M.  Villeman  to  search  for 
ancient  books  and  manuscripts.  This  work  has  been 
carefully  examined  by  many  eminent  critics  and  scholars, 
and  there  is  now  no  doubt  that  it  is  genuine.  Mr.  Bun- 
sen,  a  very  noted  Pedobaptist  scholar,  has  made  it  the 
basis  of  a  book  on  the  early  churches,  in  the  preparation 
of  which  he  consulted  also  the  ancient  canons  and  con 
stitutions." 

"  But  pray  tell  us  who  was  Hippolytus  ?" 
"  He  was  the  pastor  or  bishop  of  the  church  at  Pon- 
tus,  near  the  mouth  of  the  Tiber,  in  Italy,  and  had  been 
a  pupil  of  Iraeneus.  He  lived  in  the  early  part  of  the 
third  century,  and  probably  wrote  the  work  in  question 
about  two  hundred  and  twenty-five  or  two  hundred  and 
thirty  years  after  Christ." 

"  Well,  what  is  his  testimony  about  baptism  ?" 
"  He  says :  '  We  in  our  days  never  defended  the  bap 
tism  of  children,  which  in  my  day  had  only  begun  to  be 
practiced  in  some  regions,  unless  it  were  as  an  exception 
and  innovation.  The  baptism  of  infants  we  did  not 
know.'  And  Mr.  Bunsen,  his  translator  and  editor,  adds 
(vol.  iii.  p.  180):  '  Pedobaptism,  in  the  more  modern 
sense — meaning  thereby  baptism  of  new-born  infants, 
with  the  vicarious  promises  of  parents  or  other  sponsors 
— was  utterly  unknown  to  the  early  church,  not  only 
down  to  the  end  of  the  second  century,  but  indeed  to 
the  middle  of  the  third.'  " 

"  But,"  asked  Mrs.  Jones,  "is  there  nothing  at  all  in 
the  early  fathers  in  favor  of  infant  baptism  ?" 

"  Not  one  word,  madam,  for  the  first  two  centuries — 
not  even  an  allusion  to  it.  It  had  not  yet  been  in 
vented.  They  had  never  heard  of  it;  nor,  so  far  as  we 
can  judge  from  their  writings,  had  they  so  much  as 
thought  of  it. 


NINTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  345 

"  CLEMENS,  who  is  counted  among  the  first,  and  is 
said  to  have  been  a  companion  of  Paul,  says :  '  They  are 
right  subjects  of  baptism,  who  have  passed  through  an 
examination  and  instruction.' 

"  IGNATIUS,  of  the  same  age,  who  is  said  to  have  been 
a  disciple  of  John,  and  to  have  seen  and  talked  with 
Peter  and  Paul,  says :  '  Baptism  ought  to  be  accom 
panied  with  faith,  love,  and  patience,  after  preaching.' 
The  other  writers  of  this  century  were  Clement  of  Rome, 
Poh^carp,  Hermes,  and  Barnabas  (?)  ;  but  it  is  admitted 
by  those  who  have  searched  for  it  most  diligently,  that 
not  one  word  about  infant  baptism  is  to  be  found  in  any 
of  their  works.  So  also  in  the  second  century,  Dr.  F. 
A.  Cox,  as  quoted  by  Orchard,  says :  '  Justin  Mart}rr, 
Athenagoras,  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  Tatian,  Minucian, 
Felix,  Irseneus,  and  Clement  of  Alexandria,  constitute 
the  Christian  writers  of  this  second  century ;  who,  so  far 
from  directly  speaking  of  infant  baptism,  never  once 
utter  a  syllable  upon  the  subject.' 

"  CLEMENT  says,  indeed :  '  The  baptized  ought  to  be 
children  in  malice,  but  not  in  understanding ;  even  such 
children  who,  as  the  children  of  God,  have  put  off  the 
old  man  with  the  garments  of  wickedness,  and  have  put 
on  the  new  man.'  These  are  the  only  children  he  speaks 
of  as  having  a  right  to  baptism." 

"  You  mention  Irseneus,"  said  Uncle  Jones.  "  If  I 
do  not  forget,  I  have  heard  him  quoted  ag  authority  for 
infant  baptism." 

"  I  have  no  doubt  of  it.  Those  Doctors  of  Divinity 
who  consider  baptism  and  regeneration  as  all  the  same 
thing,  have  discovered  in  his  writings  the  following  sen 
tence  :  '  Christ  passed  through  all  ages  of  man,  that  he 
might  save  all  by  himself;  all,  I  say,  who  are  by  him 
regenerated  to  God — infants,  and  little  ones,  and  chil 
dren,  and  3'ouths,  and  persons  advanced  in  years.' 


346  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

Now,  this  is  the  only  allusion  which  it  is  pretended  that 
Iraeneus  makes  to  infant  baptism ;  and  .some  have  had 
the  temerity,  not  to  say  the  dishonesty — since  they  them 
selves  consider  baptism  and  regeneration  as  the  same 
thing,  and  because  Iraeneus,  in  some  other  place,  uses 
regenerate  in  the  sense  of  baptize — to  strike  out  regen 
erated  here  and  put  in  baptized,  and  then  refer  to  Ira>- 
neus  as  having  recognized  infant  baptism." 

"  I  am  sure,"  said  Theodosia,  "  that  the  cause  must 
be  a  very  weak  one  which  requires  such  support,  and 
they  must  be  very  weak  advocates  of  any  cause  who 
could  stoop  to  employ  such  arguments  in  its  favor." 

"  So  also  it  is  claimed  by  some,  that  Justin  Martyr 
recognized  the  baptism  of  infants,  when  he  sa}rs  to  some 
aged  Christians  that  they  had  been  the  followers  of 
Christ  from  their  childhood  ;  or,  as  these  men  read,  from 
their  infancy.  But  it  is  well  known  that,  in  those  days, 
all  minors — that  is,  all  under  twenty-five  years  of  age, 
for  that  was  considered  the  limit  of  manhood — were 
often  called  children,  and  even  infants.  And  we  read 
of  some  instances  of  persons  becoming  bishops  while 
they  were  infants — that  is,  before  they  came  of  age ; 
and  of  many  persons  being  led  to  martyrdom  while  they 
were  infants,  and  making  earnest  profession  of  the  faith 
which  they  felt  in  their  hearts,  and  sealed  with  their 
blood.  The  Baptists  will  baptize  as  many  such  infants 
as  desire  to  enter  into  the  church  of  Jesus  Christ.  But 
you  will  not  accuse  us,  on  that  account,  of  practicing 
the  baptism  of  unconscious  babes  ;*  and  these  men 
tioned  by  Justin  Martyr,  are  not  said  to  have  been  bap 
tized  in  infancy,  but  to  have  followed  Christ  from  their 
infancy.  It  is  not  till  the  beginning  of  the  third  cen- 

*  For  an  immense  amount  of  testimony  on  this  point,  see 
Robinson's  History  of  Baptism. 


NINTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  347 

tury  that  we  find  the  very  first  certain  allusion  to  the 
baptism  of  children ;  and  these  were  not  babes,  but 
little  boys  and  girls  old  enough  to  ask  for  baptism, 
though  yet  too  young  to  understand  its  import. 

"  By  this  time,  salvation  and  baptism  had  begun  to 
be  regarded  as  inseparable,  and  loving  parents  began  to 
inquire  anxiously,  What  will  become  of  our  children  if 
they  die  unbaptized  ?  To  this,  the  answer  commonly 
given  was,  that  they  must  be  lost.  Why  not,  then,  bap 
tize,  and  so  secure  their  salvation?  It  seems  that  a 
certain  wealthy  lady,  named  Quintilla,  who  was  probably 
a  mother,  and  felt  this  very  natural  anxiety  about  her 
little  ones,  had  come  to  the  conclusion  that  if  they  asked 
for  baptism,  they  ought  to  have  it,  whether  they  gave 
evidence  of  conversion  or  not ;  and  she  wrote  a  letter  to 
Tertullian,  the  bishop  of  the  church  at  Carthage,  to  get 
his  sanction  to  this  novel  doctrine.  The  answer  of  Ter 
tullian  to  this  letter  has  been  preserved,  and  contains 
the  first  undoubted  allusion  to  the  baptism  of  children 
which  is  recorded  in  the  annals  of  church  history." 

"  If  infant  baptism  had  been  a  universal  custom,  as  is 
pretended  by  some, "said  Theodosia,  "there  never  could 
have  been  any  occasion  for  Quintilla  to  write  to  Tertul 
lian  on  the  subject,  for  children  would  have  been  bap 
tized,  as  a  matter  of  course,  whether  they  asked  for  it 
or  not." 

"  Very  true ;  and  Tertullian  would  have  replied  to 
her,  that  it  had  always  been  the  practice  of  the  church 
to  baptize  the  little  darlings,  and  she  need  not  even 
wait  for  them  to  ask  for  it ;  but  he  did  no  such  thing. 
'  Those  who  administer  baptism,'  he  says,  '  know  very 
well  that  it  is  not  to  be  rashly  given.'  The  good  lady 
evidently  thought  that  it  was  enough  if  the  children 
could  ask  for  it,  and  had  quoted  the  Scripture,  '  Give  to 
him  that  asketh.'  To  this,  Tertullian  says:  'What! 


348  THEOPOSIA   ERNEST.  ,- 

give  to  him  that  askcth  !  Every  one  hath  a  right  to  it 
as  to  a  thing  of  alms  f  Nay !  say,  rather,  give  not  that 
which  is  holy  to  the  dogs ;  cast  not  your  pearls  before 
swine ;  lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man ;  be  not  partaker 
of  other  men's  sins.'  It  would  seem  that  she  had  re 
ferred  to  the  cases  of  the  Eunuch  and  of  Paul,  as  having 
received  the  ordinance  as  soon  as  they  asked  for  it. 
And  to  this,  Tertullian  replies :  '  If  Philip  baptized  the 
Eunuch  on  the  spot,  let  us  remember  that  it  was  done 
under  the  immediate  direction  of  the  Lord.'  The  Eunuch 
was  a  believer  of  the  Scripture ;  the  instruction  given 
by  Philip  was  seasonable;  the  one  preached,  the  other 
perceived  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  believed  on  him.  Water 
was  at  hand,  and  the  Apostle,  having  finished  the  affair, 
was  caught  away.  But  you  say,  Paul  was  baptized  in 
stantly.  True,  because  Judas,  at  whose  house  he  was, 
instantly  knew  that  he  was  a  vessel  of  mercy.  The  con 
descension  of  God  may  confer  his  favors  as  he  pleases, 
but  our  wishes  may  mislead  ourselves  and  others. 

"  This  lady  seems  to  have  referred,  as  you  do,  to  the 
words  of  Jesus,  '  Suffer  little  children,'  etc.  And  to  this, 
Tertullian  says,  as  Baptists  do  now :  '  The  Lord  does 
indeed  say  forbid  them  not  to  come  unto  me ;  and  let 
them  come  while  they  are  growing  up ;  let  them  come 
and  learn,  and  let  them  be  instructed  when  they  come ; 
and  when  they  understand  Christianity,  let  them  profess 
themselves  Christians.' 

"  In  another  of  his  works,  Tertullian  says :  '  Adults 
are  the  only  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  because  fasting, 
confession  of  sins,  prayer,  profession,  renouncing  the 
devil  and  his  works,  are  required  of  the  baptized.' 

"  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  at  this  time,  the  begin 
ning  of  the  third  century,  the  baptism  of  children  had 
just  begun  to  be  spoken  of. 

"  Now,  strange  as  it  may  seem  to  you,  your  Doctors 


NINTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  349 

of  Divinity  are  accustomed  to  base  the  strongest  of  all 
their  historical  arguments  on  this  letter  of  Tertulliaii  to 
Quintilla." 

"  How  is  that  possible  ?" 

"  They  say,  infant  baptism  must  have  existed,  or  Ter- 
tullian  would  not  have  opposed  it.  If  it  existed  then,  it 
must  have  existed  from  the  first,  because  we  have  no 
history  of  its  introduction,  and  no  account  of  any  pre 
vious  opposition  to  it.  And  it  is  incredible  that  it  could 
have  been  introduced  without  opposition." 

"And  what  answer,"  said  Mrs.  Jones,  "  can  you  make 
to  such  reasoning  as  that  ?" 

"  We  simply  say  that  it  did  not  exist  before.  That 
this  is  the  first  proposal  to  introduce  it,  and  that  it  was 
opposed." 

"  Very  satisfactory,  I  declare !  But  what  evidence 
have  you  that  this  was  the  first?" 

'!  The  best  evidence  that  is  possible :  It  is  the  first  on 
record.  If  the  advocates  of  infant  baptism  say  there 
was  any  previous  one,  let  them  produce  it.  But  we 
might  put  our  defence  on  different  ground.  We  might 
admit  that  infant  baptism  was  at  the  beginning  of  the 
third  century  a  generally  received  and  recognized  cus 
tom  of  the  churches,  and  yet  it  would  not  follow,  by  any 
means,  that  it  was  received  from  the  Apostles  or  had 
any  Divine  authority. 

"  You  do  not  believe  that  the  Episcopal  and  Catholic 
rite  of  confirmation  is  of  Divine  authority,  and  yet  it 
can  be  traced  back  as  far  as  infant  baptism.  You  do 
not  believe  that  there  is  any  Divine  authority  for  sign 
ing  the  baptized  with  the  sign  of  the  cross,  yet  Ter- 
tullian  distinctly  recognizes  this  as  an  existing  custom 
in  his  day.  So  he  does  the  giving  of  the  newly  bap 
tized  a  mixture  of  milk  and  honey,  and  anointing  them 
with  holy  oil.  The  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration 
30 


350  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

and  of  purgatory  both  date  back  to  or  before  this  early 
day,  as  do  the  observance  of  some  of  the  feast  days  and 
fast  days,  and  a  vast  amount  of  the  most  absurd  and 
silly  mummery  of  the  Romish  Church. 

"  The  first  we  read  of  these  fooleries,  they  were 
already  in  the  churches ;  they  had,  so  far  as  we  know, 
never  been  opposed ;  they  were  there  long  before  we  find 
any  trace  of  infant  baptism  there,  and  yet  who  of  you 
will  dare  to  say,  on  these  grounds,  that  Christ  and  his 
Apostles  ordained  that  candidates  for  baptism  should 
be  divested  of  their  clothing — should  have  salt  put  in 
their  hands — should  be  daubed  with  the  priest's  spittle 
— clothed  in  white  on  coming  out  of  the  water — signed 
with  the  sign  of  the  cross — anointed  with  chrism — walk 
from  the  water  with  a  lighted  taper  in  their  hands, 
etc.,  etc. 

"  The  truth  is,  the  simplicity  of  the  Gospel  was  cor 
rupted  even  in  the  Apostles'  days ;  and  it  was  not  the 
least  onerous  of  their  labors  to  prevent  and  correct 
unauthorized  additions  to  and  modifications  of  their 
teachings.  The  simple  fact,  therefore,  that  we  find  any 
doctrine  or  any  practice  in  the  churches  at  an  early  day, 
is  no  evidence  at  all  that  it  was  received  either  from 
Christ  or  his  Apostles.  The  Scriptures  are  our  only 
guide.  This  you  as  Protestants  admit,  and  by  this  you 
are  precluded  from  all  recourse  to  '  the  traditions  of  the 
first  Christians,'  in  regard  to  infant  baptism,  or  any 
thing  else  concerning  the  doctrines  and  ordinances  of 
our  religion.  So  that  it  is  nothing  to  you  nor  to  me 
if  infant  baptism  had  existed  before  Tertullian's  time. 
We  have  shown,  however,  that  so  far  from  being  a 
general  practice  before  that  time,  it  then  was  for  the 
first  time  proposed,  and  it  required  all  the  third  and 
most  of  the  fourth  to  secure  it  any  considerable  foot 
hold  in  the  churches,  and  that  it  did  not  become  estab 


NINTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  351 

lished  as  an  ecclesiastical  institution  till  the  time  of 
Augustine,  in  the  early  part  of  the  fifth  century. 

"  It  is  true,  as  you  may  read  in  almost  every  writei 
on  baptism,  that  Cyprian,  who  was  the  successor  of 
Tertullian  in  the  church  at  Carthage,  received  a  letter 
from  one  Fidus,  of  whom  nothing  more  is  known  than 
that  he  wrote  such  a  letter,  asking  how  soon  after  birth 
it  might  be  proper  to  baptize.  This  was  about  fort}7 
years  after  Tertullian  wrote  to  Quintilla  on  the  subject. 
Cyprian,  it  seems,  did  not  feel  quite  able  to  decide  this 
momentous  question,  and  called  a  council  of  sixty-seven 
of  his  brother  bishops  of  North  Africa,  who  gave  it  as 
their  opinion  that  the  '  Grace  of  God  should  not  be 
withheld  from  any  son  of  man,  and  that  a  child  might 
be  kissed  with  the  kiss  of  charity  as  a  brother,  so  soon 
as  it  is  born.1  This  was  in  the  year  A.  D.  257.  It  was 
this  same  Cyprian  who  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  water 
poured  about  a  person  in  bed  (if  he  was  sick  and 
could  not  be  immersed)  would  answer  in  the  place 
of  baptism." 

"  What  was  the  effect  of  this  decree  of  the  African 
Council  ?» 

"  It  seems  to  have  had  none.  It  is  likely  that  it  re 
lieved  the  doubts  of  Fidus ;  and  infants  were  probably 
baptized  in  Africa  to  some  limited  extent,  but  we  have 
no  record  of  any  such  baptisms.  One  hundred  years 
after  this,  Dr.  Wall,  the  Pedobaptist  historian,  says 
complaints  were  common  that  mothers  could  not  be 
prevailed  on  to  put  their  children  into  the  water  at 
baptism.  More  than  one  hundred  and  twenty  years 
after  this,  Gregory,  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  gave 
his  opinion  on  the  baptism  of  infants  or  babes.  These 
are  his  words :  '  But  some  say,  what  is  your  opinion  of 
infants  who  are  not  capable  of  judging  either  of  the 
grace  of  baptism  or  of  the  damage  sustained  by  the  want 


352  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

of  it  ?  Shall  we  baptize  them  too  ?  By  all  means,  if 
there  be  any  apparent  danger ;  for  it  were  better  they 
were  sanctified  without  knowing  it,  than  that  they  should 
die  without  being  sealed  and  initiated.  As  for  others,  I 
give  my  opinion,  that  when  they  are  three  years  of  age 
or  thereabouts  (for  then  they  are  able  to  hear  and  answer 
some  of  the  mystical  words ;  and  although  they  do  not 
fully  understand,  they  may  receive  impressions),  they 
may  be  sanctified,  both  soul  and  body,  by  the  great  mys 
tery  of  initiation.' 

"  But  neither  the  decree  of  Cyprian's  sixt3r-seven 
bishops,  nor  the  opinion  of  Gregory  himself,  seem  to 
have  convinced  the  common  people ;  for  in  the  next 
generation — at  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century — the 
priests  and  bishops  who  had  espoused  the  new  practice, 
which  they  doubtless  found  profitable  to  their  own 
purses,  if  not  to  the  souls  of  the  little  water-made  Chris 
tians,  found  it  needful  to  meet  in  solemn  council,  and 
pass  another  decree,  declaring  that '  Infants  ought  to  be 
baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  that  all  who  de 
nied  this  doctrine  should  be  accursed.' 

"  Previous  to  this,  great  multitudes  of  believers, 
grieved  and  disgusted  with  the  corruptions  and  innova 
tions  which  had  crept  into  the  so-called  Catholic  Church, 
had  withdrawn,  and  formed  separate  societies  of  their 
own.  From  the  arguments  and  the  decrees  which  were 
designed  to  bring  these  heretics  back  into  the  bosom 
of  Mother  Church,  it  appears  that  they  were,  in  some 
particulars,  very  much  like  our  Baptist  Churches. 

"  The  Catholic  bishop,  Augustin,  represents  them  as 
asking,  '  What  good  the  sacrament  of  Christ's  baptism 
could  do  unconscious  infants  ?' 

"And  to  this  question  he  replies,  '  That  in  regard  to 
that  matter,  it  is  piously  and  truly  believed  that  the 
faith  of,  those  by  whom  the  child  is  presented,  profits 


NINTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  353 

the  child.'  But  as  this  reasoning  did  not  prove  suf 
ficiently  convincing,  another  council  was  called,  which 
decreed,  '  That  it  was  their  will  that  whosoever  denies 
that  little  children  by  baptism  are  freed  from  perdition 
and  eternally  saved,  that  they  be  accursed.'  And  this 
decision  being  affirmed  and  sanctioned  by  the  Pope,  in 
411,  we  may  from  that  time  consider  infant  baptism  and 
baptismal  salvation  as  established  doctrines  of  that  body 
which  historians  are  accustomed  to  call  the  Church. 
But  the  decree,  with  its  appended  curse,  proved  insuf 
ficient  to  convince  the  stubborn-hearted  Baptists.  They 
refused  to  baptize  their  children,  and  the}*  disowned  the 
baptism  of  the  Catholics  by  refusing  to  receive  them 
into  their  communities  till  they  had  been  baptized  by 
themselves.  This  the  Catholics  called  re-baptism,  01- 
Anabaptism  ;  hence  the  name  of  Anabaptists,  which  has 
been  applied  to  us  almost  to  the  present  day.  For  these 
great  crimes,  the  Catholics  turned  against  them  the 
strong  arm  of  the  secular  power.  They  procured  a 
decree  of  the  Emperor,  that  not  only  those  who  re-bap 
tized,  but  those  who  received  the  ordinance  at  their 
hands,  should  be  put  to  death.  '  By  this  law,'  says 
Gibbon,  '  three  hundred  bishops,  and  several  thousand 
of  the  inferior  clergy,  were  torn  from  their  churches, 
stripped  of  their  ecclesiastical  possessions,  and  banished 
to  the  Islands.'  From  this  day  down  to  the  present,  in 
every  country  where  Pedobaptists  have  had  the  power, 
our  brethren  have  been  the  subjects  of  bitter  and  unre 
lenting  persecution.  We  can  trace  them  through  the 
pages  of  history  by  the  light  of  the  fires  that  consumed 
them,  and  by  the  rivers  of  blood  which  the}r  have  shed 
in  testimony  of  their  faith.  Millions  and  millions  of 
these  slaughtered  saints  are  standing  now  with  those 
who  were  beheaded  for  the  testimony  of  Jesus  ;  slain 
not  by  their  pagan  foes,  but  by  their  so-called  Christian 


354  THEODOSTA    ERNEST. 

» 

brethren! — by  people  whom  your  writers  call  'the 
Church,'  and  whose  history  you  record  as  the  history 
of  the  Church!  !  ! 

"  When  this  work  of  death  commenced,  they  re 
proached  Augustin  (whom  historians  call  a  saint)  with 
the  death  of  their  pastors,  and  told  him  that  God  would 
require  at  his  hand  the  blood  of  these  martyrs  at  the 
day  of  judgment.  'Martyrs!'  he  replied.  'I  know 
nothing  about  your  martyrs.  Martyrs  indeed  !  Mar 
tyrs  to  the  devil !  There  are  no  martyrs  out  of  the 
church.'  We  have  not  time  to  trace  their  history 
through  the  coming  ages,  under  the  different  names 
which  have  been  given  them,  as  Donatists,  Novatianists, 
Cathari  or  Puritans,  Paulicians,  Heuricans,  Petrobru- 
sians,  Mennonites,  Albigences,  Waldenses,  etc. ;  but  let 
me  suggest,  if  you  desire  to  pursue  the  subject  further, 
that  you  read  Orchard's  History  of  the  Foreign  Bap 
tists,  which  contains  in  a  small  space  an  immense 
amount  of  information  concerning  these  persecuted  and 
afflicted  disciples  of  Jesus." 

"  I  do  not  think,"  said  Professor  Jones,  "  that  we 
need  to  spend  further  time  upon  this  point  now.  I 
confess,  for  my  own  part,  I  am  more  than  convinced. 
I  only  wonder  that  these  facts  are  not  more  generally 
known." 

"  They  are  public  property,"  replied  Mr.  Courtney, 
"  and  have  long  been  known  to  Baptists ;  but  your 
Pedobaptist  friends  will  not  read  them  or  listen  to 
them.  And  when  we  absolutely  force  them  upon  their 
attention,  they  take  it  for  granted  there  must  be  some 
mistake  about  it,  or  else  they  would  have  heard  them 
from  their  own  ministers.  But  I  agree  with  you  that 
we  have  spent  time  enough  in  our  present  conversation  ; 
and  as  there  is  preaching  at  the  court  house  to-night, 
suppose  we  adjourn  to  meet  again  to-morrow." 


NINTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  355 

"  I  hope  you  will  meet  here,"  said  Mrs.  Jones,  "  for  I 
have  yet  one  very  serious  charge  to  offer  against  the 
Baptists." 

"  Permit  me,  madam,  to  inquire  what  it  is,  that  I  may 
be  better  prepared  to  meet  it." 

"It  is  your  close  communion.  I  am  almost  willing  to 
admit  that  immersion  is  the  only  baptism,  and  that 
infants  are  not  in  the  Scriptures  required  to  be  baptized 
— though  even  about  these  points  there  must  be  some 
mistake  on  your  part,  for  our  ministers  are  certainly  as 
learned  and  as  pious  as  yours,  and  yet  they  have  always 
represented  the  facts  as  very  different  from  the  pictures 
you  have  drawn." 

"  But  you  forget,  Mrs.  Jones,  that  it  is  by  the  testi 
mony  of  your  own  historians  and  your  own  ministers 
that  I  have  established  these  facts.  I  have  scarcely 
quoted  a  single  Baptist  authority.  The  men  who  say 
that  there  is  no  precept  or  example  of  infant  baptism  in 
the  Scriptures,  are  among  the  most  learned  and  emi 
nent  of  your  own  writers.  The  men  who  say  that  the 
very  meaning  of  the  word  baptize  is  to  immerse,  and 
that  it  was  immersion  only  which  was  for  ages  prac 
ticed  by  the  church,  are  such  men  as  McKnight  and 
Chalmers,  among  the  most  eminent  of  your  own  Doctors 
of  Divinity.  The  men  who  say  that  it  is  certain  that 
infant  baptism  was  not  ordained  by  Christ  or  the  Apos 
tles,  and  was  not  introduced  until  after  the  second  cen 
tury,  are  such  men  as  Neander,  Coleman,  and  Kitto, 
among  the  most  learned  and  eminent  of  your  own  eccle 
siastical  historians  and  Biblical  critics.  Such  men 
would  not  say  such  things  unless  the  truth  compelled 
them." 

"That  is  very  strange,  Mr.  Courtney;  but  I  can't 
deny  that  it  is  true :  and  I  may  be  convinced  that  you 


356  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

•f 

are  right  in  these  things ;  but  I  am  sure  I  never  can  be 
reconciled  to  your  practice  of  restricted  communion." 

"  Don't  be  so  certain  of  that,  madam.  I  have  no 
doubt  I  shall  be  able  to  show  you  to-morrow  that  you 
Presbyterians  are  just  as  much  restricted  in  your  terms 
of  communion  as  we  are.  The  only  difference  between 
us  is  on  the  question,  What  is  baptism  ?  But  it  is  now 
time  to  go  to  the  meeting." 

They  found  the  house  already  filled,  and  the  services 
had  commenced  when  they  arrived.  They  had  not  been 
there  long,  when  those  who  stood  near  the  door  saw  a 
horseman  ride  up  and  dismount.  It  was  Mr.  Percy.  My 
reader  will  remember  that,  after  writing  that  letter  to 
Theodosia,  he  had  gone  to  another  county  to  attend  the 
Circuit  Court.  He  reached  the  place  on  Sabbath  morn 
ing,  just  before  church  time,  and  attended  the  Presby 
terian  meeting.  At  any  other  time  he  would  probably 
have  made  the  fatigue  of  his  journey  an  excuse  for 
remaining  at  his  hotel ;  but  he  was  very  unhappy  that 
morning,  and  hoped  in  church  to  find  some  remission 
of  the  feverish  anxiety  which  preyed  upon  his  mind. 
He  could  not  feel  satisfied  that  he  had  done  right  in 
leaving  off  the  investigation  of  the  subject  of  baptism 
himself,  or  in  endeavoring  to  prevent  Theodosia  from 
acting  out  her  conscientious  convictions  of  duty.  He 
had  wished  a  hundred  times,  as  he  rode  along,  that  he 
had  never  written  that  unfortunate  letter.  Yet  he 
never  suspected  for  a  moment  the  influence  it  was  des 
tined  to  have  upon  his  own  matrimonial  prospects. 
That  Miss  Ernest  loved  him  most  devotedly  he  was 
well  assured ;  nor  did  the  thought  ever  enter  his  mind, 
that  either  this  or  any  other  event  was  likely  to  break 
off  their  engagement,  or  even  postpone  their  marriage. 
But  when  he  remembered  the  earnestness  of  heart  with 
which  she  regarded  every  question  pertaining  to  religion, 


NINTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  35T 

he  felt  that  he  must  have  occasioned  great  distress  to 
her;  and  he  bitterly  reproached  himself  that  he  had 
permitted  his  selfishness  so  far  to  triumph  over  his 
affection. 

He  had  at  first  congratulated  himself  that  he  had 
made  to  her  such  an  appeal  as  she  could  not  disregard, 
and  consequently  had  secured  the  object  which  he  had 
in  view ;  but  on  reflection,  he  began  to  feel  that  he 
should  esteem  her  more  highly  and  love  her  more  ten 
derly,  if  it  should  prove  true  that  her  religious  princi 
ples  were  so  strong  and  her  sense  of  duty  so  predomi 
nant,  that  she  would  not  listen  even  to  the  voice  of  love 
itself  dissuading  her  from  the  path  of  right. 

He  began  to  hope  that  she  would  disregard  his 
entreaties  and  do  her  duty.  He  wished  he  could  return 
in  time  to  tell  her  that  he  would  not  for  the  world  put 
any  restraint  upon  her  conscience.  He  comforted  himself 
by  the  thought  that,  if  his  letter  had  any  effect,  it  would 
only  be  to  postpone  her  decision  until  his  return,  when 
he  determined  to  take  all  difficulties  out  of  her  way. 

When  he  took  his  seat  in  the  church,  his  heart  and 
his  mind  were  in  another  place.  Could  he  but  know 
what  had  been  her  decision — where  she  was  sitting  then 
— what  she  was  doing  I  He  rose  when  the  congregation 
stood  up  to  pray — he  sat  down  when  the  preacher  said 
amen,  as  did  the  others,  but  he  heard  no  sentence  of 
the  prayer.  They  sang  an  old  familiar  hymn  to  an  air 
which  he  had  learned  in  childhood;  he  joined  in  the 
singing,  but  when  it  was  done  he  could  not  have  told 
what  was  the  tune  or  the  words.  When  the  preacher 
announced  his  text,  he  started  as  from  a  dream,  and  as 
he  repeated  it:  "  To  him  who  knoweth  to  do  good  a'nd 
doeth  it  not,  to  him  it  is  sin" — the  Spirit  at  once  applied 
it  to  his  heart.  He  felt  that  this  was  precisely  the  case 
with  himself.  He  had  examined  the  meaning  of  Christ's 


358  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

4 

commandment.  He  was  satisfied  that  he  had  not" 
obeyed  it.  He  knew  that  it  was  his  duty  to  do  what 
Christ  commanded,  but  he  had  deliberately  and  will 
fully  refused  to  do  it ;  and  what  was  worse,  he  had  ex 
erted  all  the  influence  which  he  possessed  to  induce 
Miss  Ernest  to  do  the  same. 

The  main  thoughts  of  the  sermon  were,  First,  that 
men  are  alwajrs  inclined  to  find  excuses  for  their  wick 
edness. 

Second,  there  is  no  excuse  more  frequently  offered,  or 
more  implicitly  relied  upon,  than  ignorance. 

Third,  that  although  ignorance,  when  involuntary  and 
unavoidable,  may  be  plead  in  mitigation  of  one's  guilt, 
as  Jesus  taught  us  when  he  said  that  he  who  knew  not 
his  master's  will  and  did  it  not,  should  be  beaten  with 
few  stripes — yet  those  who  might  learn  their  duty  were 
doubly  guilty.  Their  ignorance  itself  was  sin ;  and 
those  who  knew  and  acknowledged  their  duty,  and  yet 
neglected  or  refused  to  do  it,  had  not  even  the  shadow 
of  an  excuse.  Whatever  doubt  there  might  exist  in  any 
other  case,  their  sinfulness  was  certain,  and  their  guilt 
was  fearful. 

As  the  preacher  dwelt  upon  this  last  thought,  an  ex 
pression  of  agony  quivered  in  the  muscles  of  Mr.  Percy's 
face,  and  the  tears  started  in  his  eyes.  He  rested  his 
head  on  the  pew  before  him,  and  covered  his  face  to 
avoid  the  observation  of  those  about  him ;  and  as  soon 
as  the  congregation  was  dismissed,  hastened  to  his 
room  at  the  hotel,  and  passed  the  rest  of  the  day  in  most 
distressful  reflections  on  his  past  conduct  and  present 
condition.  Not  this  one  sin  alone,  but  hundreds  of 
others,  nay,  more  than  he  could  count,  came  rushing 
back  upon  his  menory.  A  lifetime  of  sin — sin  against 
light,  sin  against  love,  sin  against  deep  and  plain  con 
victions  of  duty ;  sins  of  his  early  boyhood,  sins  of  his 


NINTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  359 

heyday  youth,  sins  of  mature  manhood,  all  crowded 
around  him  and  seemed  to  call  down  Heaven's  vengeance 
on  his  head.  He  tried  to  pray,  like  the  poor  publican, 
God  be  merciful  to  me  a  Dinner.  But  his  prayer  seemed 
to  be  reflected  back  by  the  ceiling  of  the  room.  It  had 
no  messenger  to  bear  it  up  to  the  throne.  He  felt  that 
he  was  lost.  His  sin  had  found  him  out,  and  he  had  no 
Saviour.  His  hopes  were  all  gone.  He  knew  not  what 
to  do.  Night  came,  and  he  sat  there  on  the  side  of  the 
bed,  without  a  light,  feeling  that  the  darkness  of  the 
night  was  light  in  comparison  with  the  darkness  in  his 
heart.  • 

His  agony  of  mind  was  so  great  that  he  could  not 
think.  He  could  only  feel.  He  would  kneel  clown  to 
pray,  but  he  had  no  words  to  utter.  He  could  only 
groan  in  his  spirit.  He  would  rise  up  again  and  sit  upon 
the  side  of  the  bed.  Thus  the  night  wore  away.  At 
last  he  threw  himself  upon  the  bed,  and  from  mere  ex 
haustion  fell  asleep.  When  he  awoke  in  the  morning, 
his  head  was  throbbing  with  pain,  and  his  eyes  were  red 
and  swollen.  He  excused  himself  from  breakfast,  and 
had  a  cup  of  coffee  sent  to  his  room.  He  felt  that  he 
could  not  attend  to  the  business  of  the  court,  and  sent 
for  a  lawyer  of  his  acquaintance,  made  over  to  him  a 
minute  of  his  cases,  with  instructions  to  have  them  post 
poned  if  possible,  and  if  not  to  appear  for  him.  He  then 
tried  to  consider  what  he  ought  to  do  in  regard  to  his 
own  condition  as  a  sinner  before  God.  It  was  not  so 
much  the  fear  of  punishment  that  distressed  him,  as  an 
overwhelming  sense  of  guilt!  "Oh!"  he  exclaimed, 
again  and  again,  "  what  a  sinner  !  What  a  sinner  I 
have  been  !  What  a  sinner  I  am  !  Can  there  be 
mercy  for  a  wretch  like  me  !  God  have  mercy  on  me  a 
sinner." 

After  some  hours  he  ordered  his  horse,  and  started 


360  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

for  home.  He  passed  another  night  of  horror  on  the 
way — excusing  himself  for  his  speedy  return,  by  saying 
what  was  very  true,  "that  he  did  not  feel  well." 

The  second  day,  as  he  rode  along,  he  found  his  heart 
going  out  more  frequently  in  prayer,  not  so  much  for 
pardon  as  for  deliverance  from  sin.  He  loathed  himself 
for  his  vileness,  and  longed  to  be  delivered  from  the 
power  of  sin.  And  he  began  to  think  of  Jesus  more 
and  more  as  a  Saviour  from  sin  rather  than  from  hell, 
until  at  length  he  found  that  he  was  looking  to  Jesus 
to  safe  him  from  his  sins.  "Yes,"  said  he,  "he  came 
to  save  sinners — not  the  righteous,  but  sinners.  And 
his  name  was  called  Jesus,  because  he  saves  his  people 
from  their  sins.  Will  he  not  save  me  ?  But  I  am  not 
one  of  his  people.  I  am  an  outcast.  I  have  betrayed 
him  in  the  house  of  his  friends.  Can  he,  will  he  save 
me  ?"  And  the  Spirit  said,  "  Come  unto  me  all  ye  that 
are  weary  and  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest. 
And  ichosoever  cometh  I  will  in  nowise  cast  out." 
"  Surely,"  he  replied,  "that  includes  my  case.  Blessed 
Jesus,  save  me.  Save  or  I  perish.  Save,  I  cannot  save 
myself.  Save,  I  give  myself  into  thy  hands.  Yes,  I 
take  thee  for  my  Saviour.  Thou  wilt  save  me.  Thou 
dost  save  me.  Oh,  precious,  precious  Saviour !  Thou 
art  indeed  the  Lord  of  my  heart.  Show  me  what  thou 
wilt  have  me  to  do.  I  have  nothing  but  sin,  but  thou 
hast  all  needful  righteousness  to  plead  for  me.  Be  my 
intercessor.  Be  my  Redeemer.  Yes,  thou  wilt  forgive 
— thou  hast  already  pardoned.  I  trust  my  soul  to  thee, 
and  I  believe  that  thou  art  able  and  willing  to  keep  it 
to  the  day  of  redemption." 

His  distress  was  gone.  He  had  found  hope — he  had 
found  peace — he  had  found  joy.  He  rode  on  home  with 
a  glad  heart.  What  now  had  become  of  all  his  lofty 
aspirations  for  worldly  fame  and  wealth.  What  did  he 


NINTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  361 

care  now  for  position  in  society,  for  professional  repu 
tation,  for  all  indeed  that  but  three  days  ago  enlisted 
his  desires.  He  counted  them  as  less  than  vanity  and 
nothing.  One  only  question  now  filled  all  his  heart, 
and  that  was  "Lord,  what  wilt  Thou  have  me  to  do?" 
He  could  understand  now  what  Theodosia  had  meant 
when  she  talked  so  much  about  obedience  to  the  Master's 
will.  It  was  with  these  feelings  he  rode  into  the  town, 
ignorant  of  all  that  had  transpired  since  he  left — know 
ing  nothing  of  the  effect  which  his  letter  had  produced 
on  Theodosia  ;  nothing  of  her  baptism ;  nothing  of  the 
meeting  which  was  in  progress.  He  saw  the  light 
in  the  court  house,  and  heard  the  singing — dismounted 
and  approached  the  door — and  learned  that  it  was  a 
Baptist  meeting.  Without  further  question  he  went  in 
and  sat  down. 

The  sermon  was  on  the  importance  of  Christians  pro 
fessing  Christ  before  the  world.  And  at  its  close,  the 
announcement  was  made  that  the  church  was  ready  to 
receive  applications  for  membership — and  candidates 
for  admission  were  requested  to  take  a  designated  seat 
while  the  brethren  sang  a  hymn.  They  had  scarcely 
commenced  the  second  stanza  when  Professor  Jones 
and  Mr.  Percy  came  from  opposite  sides  of  the  room. 
Neither  had  been  conscious  that  the  other  was  in  the 
house.  Both  their  hearts  were  full,  and  who  will  won 
der  that  when  they  met  they  rushed  into  each  others' 
arms,  and  wept  upon  each  others'  necks ! 

Need  I  tell  how  Theodosia  drew  her  heavy  vail 
down  over  her  face,  and  how  her  heart  beat  audibly 
while  she  listened  for  the  words  that  should  explain 
this  mj^stery  ? 

She  was  not  kept  long  in  suspense,  Mr.  Percy  was 
the  first  to  relate  his  experience  of  grace.  He  dated 
his  conversion  only  a  few  hours  back.  "  This  very  day," 
31 


362  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

»" 

said  he,  "  for  the  first  time  I  have  been  enabled  to  real 
ize  the  pardon  of  my  sins.  I  fancied  some  years  ago 
that  I  had  been  converted,  but  am  now  convinced  that 
I  was  self-deceived."  He  then  began  at  his  early  con 
viction  of  sin,  and  related  the  history  of  his  connection 
with  the  Presbyterians — his  recent  examination  of  the 
subject  of  baptism.  Though  fully  convinced  that  im 
mersion  was  the  only  baptism,  he  had  felt  that  it  would 
be  ruinous  to  his  worldly  prospects  to  change  his  church 
connections ;  and  he  told  how  it  was  that  his  sin  had 
found  him  out  in  a  distant  town — what  agony  of  mind 
he  had  endured  for  the  past  two  days,  and  how  it 
pleased  God  to  speak  peace  to  his  soul  as  he  was  coming 
home.  That  he  had  seen  the  light  in  the  court  house, 
and  learning  that  it  was  a  Baptist  meeting,  had  come  in 
with  the  determination  to  ask  for  baptism. 

I  need  not  detain  the  reader  by  any  account  of  the 
experience  of  grace  which  was  related  by  Professor 
Jones.  Nor  need  I  attempt  to  describe  the  emotions 
of  Theodosia,  her  mother,  or  Mrs.  Jones,  while  this 
scene  was  passing.  I  will  simply  say  that  Uncle  Jones 
and  Mr.  Percy,  with  some  half  a  dozen  others,  were  re 
ceived,  and  Sabbath  morning  set  as  the  time  for  their 
baptism. 


WHICH  IS  MAINLY  DEVOTED 


SUBJECT  OF  "CLOSE  COMMUNION." 


TEKTH  NIGHT'S   STUDY. 

accordance  with  the  request  expressed  by  Mrs. 
Jones,  as  her  visitors  were  about  to  leave  on  the 
previous  night,  our  company  of  inquirers  met  at 
her  house  to  hear  her  complaint  about  close  com 
munion.  This  subject  had  now  assumed  a  new 
and  touching  interest  to  her.  It  had  associated 
itself  with  her  domestic'  affections.  She  felt  that  hence 
forth,  in  a  very  important  sense,  she  must  be  separated 
from  her  husband ;  and  though  from  the  moment  that 
she  saw  he  had  decided  upon  being  baptized,  she  had, 
from  courtesy  and  affection,  refrained  from  any  further 
argument  to  him — yet  her  heart  was  full  of  reasons, 
which  she  longed  for  an  opportunity  to  pour  out  upon 
some  one  else,  showing  that,  in  this  particular  at  least, 
the  Baptists  were  the  most  bigoted,  selfish,  conceited, 
and  uncharitable  people  that  ever  deserved  the  name  of 
Christians.  Mrs.  Ernest,  though  she  had  entertained 
the  same  opinion  until  her  daughter  and  her  brother  had 
become  associated  with  the  people  she  had  formerly  so 
much  condemned,  yet  was  now  almost  ready  to  admit 
that  they  might  be  right  in  this,  as  well  as  other  things. 
In  truth,  she  was  like  a  great  multitude  of  both  sexes 
in  all  our  religious  bodies,  who  never  have  any  opinion 
of  their  own  upon  any  disputed  point  of  faith  or  prac 
tice.  She  had  always  had  full  faith  in  the  learning  and 
the  piety  of  her  brother  Jones  and  her  pastor  Johnson. 
What  they  said  was  true,  she  never  thought  of  doubting. 
They  were,  to  her,  infallible  as  the  priest  to  a  Catholic. 
What  had  she  to  do  with  these  knotty  questions  ?  Had 

(365) 


366  THEODOSIA   ERNEST.  ^ 

not  her  pastor  spent  his  life  in  studying  them  ?  and  was 
it  not  in  part  for  this  that  he  was  paid,  to  do  the  peo 
ple's  thinking  for  them,  and  tell  them  what  was  the  true 
faith  and  practice  of  a  Gospel  church  ? 

But  now,,  when  her  brother  doubted  the  pastor's  word, 
and  even  Theodosia  had  gotten  the  better  of  him  in  the 
argument,  her  confidence  was  gone ;  her  mind  was  all 
unsettled ;  she  knew  not  where  to  look  for  truth ;  she 
must  have  time  to  choose  anew  her  spiritual  guide ;  and 
in  doing  this,  she  was  likely  to  be  influenced  more  by 
her  feelings  than  her  judgment. 

Mr.  Courtney  found  Mrs.  Ernest  and  Theodosia  wait 
ing  for  him  when  he  called  to  accompany  them  to  the 
Professor's  residence ;  and  even  Edwin  had  been  dili 
gently  studying  his  lessons,  that  he  might  gain  time  to 
go  with  them  and  listen  to  the  discussion.  On  their 
arrival,  they  found  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  McXought,  the 
President  of  the  college,  had  called  to  take  a  friendly 
cup  of  tea  ;  and,  at  the  urgent  request  of  both  the  Pro 
fessor  and  Mrs.  Jones,  he  consented  to  remain  and  take 
part  in  the  conversation.  Uncle  Jones  stepped  out 
for  a  moment,  and  Mrs.  Jones  introduced  the  subject 
by  saying : 

"  Don't  you  think  it  hard,  Doctor,  that  my  husband 
has  placed  himself  in  a  position  that  will  forever  pre 
vent  us  from  communing  together  at  the  table  of  the 
Lord?  I  declare  it  almost  breaks  my  heart  when  I 
think  of  it." 

"  It  does  indeed  seem  hard,  madam ;  but  we  all  know 
that  Professor  Jones  has  only  acted  in  accordance  with 
the  requirements  of  his  conscience.  I  do  not  think  that 
any  one  who  knows  him  can  find  any  reason  to  blame 
him  for  any  thing  but  too  great  haste  in  making  his  de 
cision.  If  he  had  taken  more  time,  and  examined  the 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  367 

whole  subject  with  proper  care,  he  nrnst  have  come  to 
different  conclusions." 

"  No,  doctor,  Mr.  Jones  did  not  act  hastily.  This  is 
no  new  subject  to  him.  He  has  been  laboring  over  it 
for  months,  and  I  feared  how  it  would  end.  He  has  ex 
amined  it  with  the  most  careful  attention,  and  decided 
with  cool  and  prayerful  deliberation.  He  knows  every 
inch  of  the  ground  over  which  he  has  passed,  and  can 
give  you  a  reason  for  ever}*  change  of  opinion  that  he 
has  made.  He  is  not  a  man  lightly  to  change  his  faith 
on  any  superficial  investigation ;  and  that  is  what  so 
much  troubles  me.  I  know  when  his  mind  is  once  de 
cided,  and  he  has  openly  expressed  his  conviction,  he  is 
immovable  as  the  Rock  of  Gibraltar.  I  have  no  hope 
of  ever  winning  him  back.  His  path  and  mine  are 
henceforth  separate :  I  am  a  Presbyterian,  he  is  a  Bap 
tist.  He  will  abandon  his  professorship ;  he  will  engage 
in  the  work  of  the  ministry.  I  shall  go  and  listen  to 
his  preaching ;  I  shall  be  present  when  he  administers 
the  Supper  of  the  Lord,  and  neither  I  nor  his  sister  here 
— who  loves  him  more  than  any  one  in  the  world  except 
myself — neither  of  us  can  partake  of  the  elements  at 
the  table  where  our  own  brother  and  husband  is  pre 
siding.  He  will  be  bound  to  reject  us  from  the  company 
of  those  whom  he  will  call  the  saints  of  God,  as  though 
we  were  not  Christians,  and  never  expected  to  commune 
together  in  heaven." 

'•As  for  me,"  said  Mrs.  Ernest,  "if  brother  ever  be 
comes  the  pastor  of  a  church,  and  thinks  that  I  ought 
to  be  baptized,  I  shall  let  him  baptize  me.  I  suspect  he 
is  as  competent  to  judge  of  the  meaning  of  the  Scripture 
as  Mr.  Johnson,  if  he  only  took  the  same  pains  to  study 
into  it.  But  I  don't  see  why  the  Baptists  can't  act  like 
other  Christians.  We  always  invite  them  to  our  table — 
why  should  they  not  invite  us  to  theirs  ?  Don't  we  all 


368  THEOD08IA   ERNEST. 

f 

trust  in  the  same  Saviour ;  and  are  we  not  all  seeking 
the  same  heaven  ?  I  wonder  if  they  expect  there  will  be 
two  tables  up  there,  and  they  can  sit  down  by  themselves 
in  the  very  presence  of  Jesus,  and  sen'd  every  one  who 
has  not  been  under  the  water  to  another  apartment  ? 
No,  no !  we  will  all  commune  together  there,  and  we 
ought  all  to  commune  together  here.  I  don't  blame 
brother  or  Theodosia  for  becoming  Baptists,  for  I  know 
they  were  compelled  to  do  it  by  a  sense  of  duty ;  but  I 
do  blame  the  Baptists  for  being  so  bigoted  and  unchari 
table,  and  acting  as  though  they  thought  nobody  was 
good  enough  for  heaven  but  themselves ;  and  I  don't 
see  as  they  are  so  much  better  than  other  people,  after 
all." 

"  You  place  the  matter  on  the  right  ground,"  replied 
Dr.  McNought.  "  Every  man  ought  to  be  fully  per 
suaded  in  his  own  mind,  and  then  ought  to  be  at  liberty 
to  act  out  his  own  convictions  of  duty.  We  demand 
this  for  ourselves,  we  ought  to  concede  it  to  others.  If 
any  one  feels  that  he  cannot  obey  Christ  without  being 
immersed,  let  him  be  immersed ;  but  let  him  not  say, 
that  because  his  conscience  requires  immersion,  that 
therefore  every  person's  must.  I  profess  to  love  the 
Lord  Jesus,  and  I  desire  sincerely  and  honestly,  if  I 
know  my  own  heart,  to  obey  all  his  commandments. 
But  while  Professor  Jones  has  become  fully  convinced 
that  the  Lord  commanded  us  to  be  immersed  after  we 
believe,  I  am  as  fully  convinced  that  he  commanded  us 
to  be  sprinkled  while  we  were  yet  unconscious  babes. 
My  conscience,  therefore,  is  satisfied ;  and  if  I  should 
be  immersed,  I  should  commit  a  grievous  sin,  for  I  would 
be  doing  that  in  professed  obedience  to  Christ  which 
Christ  has  never  commanded.  Now,  Baptists  have  no 
right  to  ask  me  to  violate  my  conscience,  nor  (I  say  it 
with  all  due  respect  to  you,  Mr.  Courtney)  have  they 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  369 

any  right  to  exclude  me  from  the  table  of  the  Lord  for 
not  doing  what  I  regard  as  a  sin." 

"  You  set  the  subject  in  a  very  strong  light,"  replied 
Mr.  Courtney,  "  and  I  am  glad  you  do  so.  I  wish  to 
meet  this  difficulty  fairly  and  candidly.  I  seek  no  eva 
sion,  and  am  willing  to  submit  our  faith  and  our  prac 
tice,  in  this  and  every  other  particular,  to  the  sternest 
and  strictest  Scriptural  tests.  If  we  are  wrong,  no 
people  in  the  world  should  sooner  hasten  to  get  right 
than  we,  who  have  no  law  but  the  Scripture,  and  no 
leader  but  Christ.  And  now,  let  us  look  at  your  argu 
ment.  You  say  that  a  church  has  no  Scriptural  right 
to  exclude  from  her  communion  any  person  who  professes 
to  love  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  desires  to  obey  all  his  com 
mandments,  whether  he  regards  those  commandments 
in  the  same  light  which  the  church  does  or  not.  A  great 
many  professed  Christians  seem  to  see  the  subject  in 
the  same  light.  They  say  it  is  the  Lord's  table ;  and 
because  it  is  his,  and  not  ours,  the  church  in  which  the 
table  is  set  has  no  right  to  exclude  from  it  any  who 
profess  to  love  the  Lord,  and  who  desire  to  approach  it." 

"  Certainly,"  said  Mrs.  Jones ;  "  I  do  not  see  how  any 
body  of  Christians  could  ever  have  felt  disposed  to 
arrogate  to  themselves  the  authority  to  determine  who 
shall  and  who  shall  not  approach  the  table  of  the  Lord, 
or  upon  what  authority  they  can  possibly  rest  so  pre 
sumptuous  a  claim." 

"  Doubtless,  then,"  mildly  replied  Mr.  Courtney,  "you 
will  think  it  is  a  great  exhibition  of  personal  self-con 
fidence,  or  of  Baptist  assumption  on  my  part,  when  I 
assure  you  that  I  can  prove,  not  only  to  my  own  satis 
faction,  but  also  to  yours  and  Dr.  McN ought's — 

"  I.  That  every  church  of  Christ  has  the  exclusive 
right  within  itself  to  decide  who  shall  be  participants 
in  its  communion. 


370  TIIEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

» 

"  II.  That  all  Pedobaptists,  including  Presbyterians, 
are  accustomed  to  recognize  and  exercise  this  right,  on 
the  same  general  principles  that  Baptists  do ;  and, 

III.  That  no  church  can  refuse  or  neglect  to  exercise 
that  right  without  being  guilty  of  open  rebellion  against 
the  positive  requirements  of  the  laio  of  Christ." 

"  I  don't  know,"  replied  she,  "  what  you  may  be  able 
to  do  about  the  first  and  the  last  of  your  three  proposi 
tions  ;  but  I  am  sure  you  can't  make  me  believe  that 
Presbyterians  and  Methodists  either  believe  in  or  prac 
tice  close  communion  like  the  Baptists.  You  and  my 
husband  have  proved  so  mairy  strange  things  from  the 
Scriptures  since  he  has  been  engaged  in  this  investiga 
tion,  that  I  won't  deny  that  you  can  prove  any  thing 
you  say  you  can,  which  depends  upon  them.  But  the 
faith  and  practice  of  our  church,  I  am  sure,  I  know  as 
much  about  as  you  do.  And  I  know  we  have  never  set 
any  such  restrictions  around  our  table,  as  you  habitually 
set  around  yours.  We  have  always  regarded  it  as  the 
Lord's  table,  and  we  constantly  invite  to  our  com 
munion  all  who  profess  to  love  the  name  of  Jesus." 

"  Ycm  almost  tempt  me,  madam,  to  prove  my  second 
proposition  first,  and  show  you  at  once  that  you  Presby 
terians  are  as  close  in  your  communion  as  we  arc,  and 
that  the  only  difference  between  us  is  that  you  arc  more 
open  in  your  baptism." 

"  I  wish  you  would,  and  I  think  then  I  could  better 
attend  to  your  proof  on  the  other  points." 

"  Very  well — since  you  desire  it,  we  will  take  this  up 
first,  and  then  return  to  the  other.  If  I  did  not  mis 
understand  you,  it  is  your  opinion  that  all  who  profess 
to  love  the  Lord  Jesus  should  be  invited  to  his  table, 
and  that  the  practice  of  your  people  is  in  accordance 
with  this  rule." 

"  Certainty  ;  it  is  the  Lord's  table  and  not  ours.     And 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  371 

we  do  not  undertake  to  decide  on  the  fitness  of  those 
who  approach  it.  Let  every  one  judge  for  himself. 
'  To  his  own  master  he  standeth  or  falleth ;'  whoever 
thinks  he  has  the  love  of  Jesus  in  his  heart,  let  him 
come." 

"  Then  of  course  you  invite  the  Roman  Catholic, 
whom  you  regard  as  a  follower  and  subject  of  anti- 
Christ,  the  man  of  sin — the  great  enemy  and  persecutor 
of  the  church,  of  whom  it  was  foretold  that  '  he  should 
wear  out  the  saints  of  the  Most  High.'  He  will  assure 
you  that  although  he  loves,  and  reverences,  and  wor 
ships  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mother  of  God,  he  also  loves 
her  Son  and  the  holy  child  Jesus.  And  he  will  assure 
you,  moreover,  that  his  conscience  absolutely  demands 
of  him  to  be  the  very  creature  of  the  Pope,  which  he  is 
known  to  be.  If  he  should  renounce  his  faith  and  prac 
tice,  he  feels  that  he  would  be  guilty  of  a  mortal  sin. 
Of  course,  Doctor,  you  would  not  exclude  him  '  for  not 
doing  what  he  would  regard  as  sin.' 

"Then  there  is  the  Unitarian.  He  claims  that  he 
loves  Christ  and  delights  in  his  service,  although  he 
denies  his  divinity,  and  regards  him  only  as  a  creature. 
He  is  sincere  and  honest  in  his  faith;  of  course  you 
make  him  welcome.  He  says  he  could  not  worship 
Christ  without  being  guilty  of  idolatry;  and  no  idolator 
hath  any  part  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Yoi|  surely 
will  not  reject  him  for  not  doing  what  he  honestly 
believes  would  place  his  soul  in  danger  of  destruction. 

"And  near  him  stands  a  Universalist.  You  invite 
him,  of  course,  for  he  says  he  loves  Christ  better 
than  any  of  us,  and  has  more  reason  to  love  him.  We 
can  only  love  him  as  the  Saviour  of  those  who  believe 
and  repent,  but  he  can  love  him  as  the  Saviour  of  all  the 
human  race ;  and  he  will  assure  you  that  he  would  re 
gard  it  as  dishonorable  to  God  to  condemn  a  soul  to 


372  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

•r 

endless  punishment  for  the  few  sins  he  might  be  able  to 
commit  in  this  life,  that  he  would  feel  himself  fearfully 
guilty  should  he  venture  in  his  heart  to  believe  that  he 
will  do  it.  And  I  am  sure,  Doctor,  you  could  not,  ac 
cording  to  the  rule  you  laid  down  awhile  ago,  exclude 
him  for  not  believing  what,  in  his  opinion,  he  could  not 
believe  without  sin. 

"There  are  also  many  people  in  the  world  who  come 
to  your  meetings,  who  have  never  connected  themselves 
with  any  religious  society,  who,  nevertheless,  make 
great  professions  at  times  of  their  love  to  Jesus.  They 
thank  their  God  that  they  are  so  much  better  than  many 
members  of  your  church.  Not  only  will  they  assure 
you  that  they  love  God  better  than  you  or  I,  but  can 
boast  they  have  always  loved  him,  and  never  have  done 
much,  if  any  thing,  for  which  they  think  he  can  com 
plain  of  them.  Upon  what  ground  can  you  exclude 
these :  since,  according  to  your  rule,  it  is  the  Lord's 
table,  and  every  one  is  entitled  to  judge  for  himself  of 
his  fitness  to  approach  it  ?  How  dare  you  say  that  each 
and  all  of  these  shall  not  come  and  fill  your  table 
every  time  the  cloth  is  spread,  mixing  with  yourselves 
as  every  way  your  equals,  and  showing  to  the  world 
that  they  are  in  all  respects  equally  entitled  to  this 
great  and  distinctive  privilege  of  the  church  of  Jesus 
Christ  ?» 

"  Oh,  no,  Mr.  Courtney,  I  did  not  mean  that.  I  don't 
want  to  commune  with  Roman  Catholics,  or  Unitarians, 
or  Universalists,or  non-professors ;  and  we  Presbyterians 
never  have  been  accustomed  to  invite  to  our  table  any 
such  people.  All  I  meant  to  say  was,  that  we  invite 
all  those  whom  we  have  reason  to  regard  as  converted 
men  or  icomen,  and  who  have  made  an  open  profession 
of  their  faith  in  Christ." 

"Ah,  madam,  that  is  quite  a  different  thing  from  in- 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  373 

viting  all  who  profess  to  love  the  Lord  of  the  table.  It 
seems  then,  after  all,  that  you,  not  they,  are  to  be  the 
judge  of  their  fitness.  But  will  Dr.  McNought  agree 
to  this  new  rule  ?  He  says,  if  I  did  not  misunderstand 
him,  '  No  church  has  any  right  or  ought  to  have  any  in 
clination  to  exclude  any  one  from  the  table  of  the  Lord 
who  professes  to  love  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  to  desire  to 
obey  all  his  commandments,  and  who  is  sincere  and 
honest  in  his  conviction  that  his  faith  and  practice  is 
correct,  however  widely  it  may  differ  from  that  of  the 
church  whose  communion  he  seeks.'" 

"Perhaps  I  expressed  myself  a  little  too  loosely," 
replied  the  Doctor.  "  I  did  not  intend  to  say  that  the 
church  is  to  have  no  discretion  in  the  matter ;  but  only 
that  she  has  no  right  to  exclude  any  whom  she  recog 
nizes  as  genuine  and  evangelical  Christians.  Now,  you 
Baptists  do  not  pretend  to  doubt  (at  least  you  often  say 
so)  that  Presbyterians  and  Methodists,  and  members  of 
other  evangelical  churches,  are  just  as  good  Christians 
as  you  are  yourselves,  and  every  way  as  worthy  and 
well  qualified  for  the  the  table  of  the  Lord  as  you  are, 
saving  only  that  we  have  not  been  under  the  water ; 
and  as  we  are  prevented  from  going  under  the  water  by 
our  conscientious  regard  to  what  we  understand  to 
be  the  commandments  of  Christ,  you  have  no  right  and 
ought  to  have  no  disposition  to  exclude  us  on  that  ac 
count." 

"  Never  mind  the  Baptists  just  now,  Doctor.  We  will 
come  to  them  presently.  We  are  now  investigating  the 
practice  of  Presbyterians,  and  the  principles  on  which 
it  rests,  and  we  have  progressed  thus  far.  You  do  not, 
it  seems,  leave  it  for  every  one  to  determine  for  himself 
in  regard  to  his  fitness  to  commune.  You  do  not  invite 
all  who  may  think  themselves  worthy  and  well  qualified, 
but  those  only  whom  you  have  reason  to  think  are  con- 
32 


374  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

verted  or  regenerated  men — and  the  testimony  on  whicfi 
you  regard  them  as  such  is  the  fact  that  they  are  mem 
bers  in  good  standing  in  any  of  these  churches  which 
require  evidence  of  conversion  as  a  prerequisite  to  mem 
bership." 

"  Precisely  so,  sir,"  replied  the  Doctor.  "  I  could  not 
have  described  our  practice  more  perfectly  myself." 

"  But  there  is  another  thing  which  you  Presbyte 
rians  require  besides  evidence  of  conversion,  and  which 
you  will  no  more  dispense  with  than  you  will  with 
that." 

"And  what  is  that,  pray  ?"  asked  Mrs.  Jones.  "  You 
seem  to  know  more  about  us  than  we  do  ourselves." 

"  You  shall  yourself  answer  your  own  question, 
madam.  When  one  not  previously  a  member  of  any 
religious  denomination  is  converted  from  his  sins,  re 
pents  and  believes,  and  gives  good  evidence  that  he  has 
become  a  new  creature  in  Christ  Jesus,  do  you  at  once, 
without  any  further  preliminaries,  invite  him  to  your 
communion  table  ?" 

"  Certainly  we  do,  as  soon  as  he  has  made  a  public 
profession  and  united  with  the  church.  We  could  not, 
of  course,  invite  one  who  was  not  a  member  of  any 
church." 

"  Very  good ;  but  in  what  manner  does  he  become  a 
member  ?  Is  he  not  received  in  the  ordinance  of  bap 
tism?" 

"  Of  course — if  he  has  not  been  baptized  in  infancy  he 
must  be  baptized.  Baptism  is  the  door  of  entrance  into 
the  church,  and  no  one  can  be  a  member  who  has  not 
been  baptized." 

"  Perhaps,  Doctor,  you  maybe  more  familiar  with  the 
practice  of  your  denomination  than  Mrs.  Jones.  Do  you 
agree  with  her  that  no  one  is  recognized  as  a  full  mem 
ber  till  he  has  been  baptized ;  or  do  you  invite  him  at 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  375 

once  to  your  table  as  soon  as  you  are  satisfied  that  he 
is  a  converted  man  ?" 

"  Our  rules  in  regard  to  this  matter,"  replied  the  Doc 
tor,  "  are  clearly  laid  down  on  pages  504  and  505  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  '  ON  THE  ADMISSION  OF  PERSONS  TO 
SEALING  ORDINANCES'  : 

"  '  Children  born  within  the  pale  of  the  visible  church, 
and  dedicated  to  God  in  baptism,  are  under  the  inspec 
tion  and  government  of  the  church,  and  are  to  be  taught 
to  read  and  repeat  the  Catechism,  the  Apostles'  Creed, 
and  the  Lord's  Prayer.  They  are  to  be  taught  to  pray, 
to  abhor  sin,  to  fear  God,  and  to  obey  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ ;  and  when  they  come  to  years  of  discretion,  if 
they  be  free  from  scandal,  appear  sober  and  steady,  and 
to  have  sufficient  knowledge  to  discern  the  Lord's  body, 
they  ought  to  be  informed  that  it  is  their  duty  and  their 
privilege  to  come  to  the  Lord's  Supper.'  'When  un- 
baptized  persons  apply  for  admission  into  the  church, 
they  shall,  in  ordinary  cases,  after  giving  satisfaction  with 
respect  to  their  knowledge  and  piety,  make  a  public  pro 
fession  of  their  faith  in  the  presence  of  the  congrega 
tion  ;  and  thereupon  be  baptized.'  " 

"And  on  page  456,"  replied  Mr.  Courtney,  "you  will 
find  this  rule — 'All  baptized  persons  are  members  of  the 
church,  are  under  its  care,  and  subject  to  its  government 
and  discipline ;  and  when  they  have  arrived  at  years 
of  discretion,  they  are  bound  to  perform  all  the  duties  of 
church  members.'1 

"  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  although  you  are,  ac 
cording  to  your  '  Confession  of  Faith,'  at  liberty  to 
dispense  with  any  public  profession  of  faith  in  the  case 
of  those  baptized  in  infancy,  you  are  not  to  dispense 
with  baptism.  All  the  baptized,  whether  converted  or 
unconverted,  are,  when  they  come  to  years  of  discretion, 
'bound  to  perform  all  the  duties  of  church  members.' 


J$76  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

And  if  the  celebration  of  the  Holy  Supper  is  one  of  the 
duties  of  church  members,  they  are  bound  to  commune  ; 
but  no  one  whom  you  regard  as  unbaptized,  however 
pious  he  may  be,  can  be  permitted  to  approach  your 
table,  any  more  than  any  one  whom  we  regard  as  un 
baptized  can  come  to  ours.  What  then  is  the  difference 
between  your  practice  and  ours  ?  In  what  respect  is 
your  communion  more  open  than  ours  ?  Simply  and  only 
in  this :  That  you,  according  to  page  456  of  your  Con 
fession  of  Faith,  admit  the  unreligious  and  unconverted, 
who  have  never  even  professed  to  be  the  subjects  of 
regenerating  grace,  provided  they  were  baptized  in  their 
infancy — while  we  admit  none  who  have  not  made  for 
themselves  a  credible  profession  of  their  repentance  and 
faith.  I  will,  however,  do  you  the  justice  to  say,  that 
many  of  your  churches  in  this  country  so  far  repudiate 
your  own  rules,  as  not  to  invite  or  requii-e  the  baptized 
children  to  come  to  the  table  of  the  Lord  till  they  have 
given  evidence  of  conversion  ;  and  these  bodies  and  our 
selves,  therefore,  stand  on  precisely  the  same  ground — 
that  is,  we  each  require  evidence  of  both  conversion 
and  baptism,  before  we  admit  or  invite  any  to  our  com 
munion." 

"  But  yet,"  said  Mrs.  Ernest,  "  we  can't  stand  upon 
the  same  ground,  for  we  always  invite  you,  and  you 
never  invite  us." 

"  The  reason  is  not,  madam,  that  we  do  not  act  upon 
the  same  principle,  but  that  we  differ  in  regard  to  what 
baptism  is,  and  consequently  as  to  who  have  been  bap 
tized.  You  consider  all  baptized  who  have  been  sprin 
kled  in  infancy.  We  regard  those  only  as  baptized  who 
have  been  immersed  on  a  profession  of  their  faith.  But 
you  no  more  extend  yourinvitation  to  commune  to  those 
whom  you  consider  unbaptized  than  we  do.  Your  bap 
tism  reaches  further  than  ours,  but  your  invitation  to 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  377 

commune  never  reaches  beyond  your  baptism.  Do  }rou 
not  see,  thereto i'e,  that  all  our  difference  of  opinion  is 
simply  about  baptism,  and  not  about  communion  ? 
Show  us  that  the  sprinkling  of  infants  is  Scriptural 
baptism,  and  we  can,  and  will  at  once  extend  our  invita 
tion  to  the  communion  so  as  to  embrace  you  all.  But 
until  you  can  show  us  that,  you  surely  cannot  ask  us  to 
invite  those  whom  we  regard  as  unbaptized,  while  you 
cannot  invite  those  whom  you  regard  as  unbaptized  ? 

"  Except  in  case  of  the  children  of  your  own  church 
members,  you  require  both  conversion  and  baptism  as 
prerequisites  to  communion.  And  for  the  most  part,  in 
this  country,  though  not  in  Europe,  you  repudiate  your 
Confession  so  far  as  to  require  it  even  of  them.  You 
refuse  to  commune  with  Universalists,  and  Unitarians, 
and  Roman  Catholics,  because,  although  you  think  they 
have  been  baptized,  you  do  not  believe  they  have  ex 
perienced  the  regeneration  of  the  Gospel.  You  refuse 
to  commune  with  a  newly  converted  person,  though 
satisfied  that  he  is  really  born  again,  till  he  has  pub 
licly  professed  his  faith,  and  been  baptized.  It  was  on 
this  ground  that  Professor  Moses  Stuart,  one  of  your 
ablest  writers  and  most  learned  men,  said  that  if  a  pious 
member  of  the  society  of  Quakers  or  Friends  should  so 
far  forsake  his  principles,  as  to  desire  to  commune  with 
him  at  the  table  of  the  Lord,  he  must  refuse  unless  he 
would  be  first  baptized. 

"  Precisely  so  it  is  with  us.  We  also  require  evidence, 
both  of  conversion  and  of  baptism.  We  ask  for  neither 
more  nor  less  than  you  do.  Are  you  not  satisfied  ?  or 
shall  we  spend  further  time  upon  this  point  ?" 

"  I  did  not,"  replied  the  Doctor,  "  need  to  be  told  that 
Presbyterians  require  baptism  as  a  prerequisite  to  com 
munion.  No  one  has  ever  doubted  it,  so  far  as  I  have 


878  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

been  informed.  I  am  sure  no  one  ever  had  any  reason 
to  doubt  it." 

"  On  what  ground,  then,  do  you  complain  of  us  so 
bitterly,  since  we  require  nothing  more  than  you  do?" 

"  We  do  not  complain  of  you  for  requiring  baptism 
as  a  necessary  and  invariable  prerequisite  to  commu 
nion,  but  for  requiring  immersion,  and  thus  setting  up 
your  judgment  against  that  of  the  whole  Christian 
world.  You  will  not  only  have  baptism,  but  you  must 
have  your  own  baptism — whereas,  we  receive  that  of  all 
other  denominations,  including  yours.  How  then  can 
you  say  that  we  stand  on  the  same  ground  ?" 

"  I  do  not  say  that  we  stand  on  the  same  ground  as 
regards  baptism.  Here  I  know  we  differ  as  far  as  a  few 
drops  sprinkled  upon  the  forehead  of  an  unconscious 
babe,  differs  from  the  plunging  of  a  believing  Christian 
man  or  woman  into  a  liquid  grave.  But  in  regard  to 
communion,  we  agree,  at  least,  so  far  as  this  subject 
under  discussion  is  concerned.  That  is,  we  both  require 
baptism  as  preparatory  to  a  Scriptural  approach  to  the 
Lord's  Table.  This  much  you  freely  admit.  You 
admit  also,  that  no  Presbyterian  Church  is  accustomed 
to  invite  or  permit  the  approach  of  those  to  your  com 
munion  whom  you  regard  as  unbaptized.  You  will 
admit,  moreover,  that  you  have  somewhere,  in  what  you 
call  '  The  Presbyterian  Church,'  the  power  to  exclude 
from  your  communion  such  as  you  may  deem  unworthy. 
I  need  not,  therefore,  dwell  any  longer  on  this  point. 
You  cannot  deny  that  I  have  fully  established  my 
second  proposition,  which  was,  as  you  will  remember — 
That  Pedobaptist  churches,  even  Presbyterians,  are  ac 
customed,  as  well  as  Baptists,  to  recognize  and  exercise 
the  right  to  determine  for  themselves  whom  it  is  proper 
and  expedient  to  admit  to  their  communion.  And  I  have 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  379 

proved,  also,  that  you  as  well  as  we  refuse  to  admit  any 
one  who  has  not,  in  your  opinion,  been  baptized. 

"  So  far  we  are  perfectly  agreed ;  but  because  you  con 
sider  many  persons  as  baptized  whom  we  regard  as  un- 
baptized,  you  can  invite  many  whom  we  must  refuse. 
Here,  then,  is  the  gist  of  the  whole  dispute.  Now,  let 
me  ask  you  one  question.  Does  not  the  Presbyterian 
Church  claim  and  exercise  the  right  to  decide  for  her 
self  what  baptism  is,  according  to  her  understanding 
of  the  Scriptures  ?" 

"  Certainly  she  does,"  replied  the  Doctor,  "  and  you 
may  find  her  decision,  with  the  proof-texts  on  which  it 
rests,  recorded  on  page  146  of  the  Confession  of  Faith: 
'  Dipping  of  the  person  into  the  water  is  not  necessary ; 
but  baptism  is  rightly  administered  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling.' " 

"  Why  then  should  you  or  any  one  complain  if  a  Bap 
tist  Church  should  feel  that  she  had  equally  the  right  to 
decide  for  herself  according  to  her  understanding  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  should  give  her  opinion  and  the  proof- 
texts  on  which  it  rests  ?  And  what  if  she  should  come 
to  the  conclusion,  that  '  dipping  the  person  in  the  water 
is  necessary,'  and  that  baptism  cannot  be  administered 
at  all  'by  pouring,'  or  'by  sprinkling?'  What  then? 
Must  she  act  as  though  she  did  not  believe  it  ?  Must 
she  submit  her  judgment  to  yours,  and  receive  as  bap 
tism,  on  your  recommendation,  what  she  solemnly  be 
lieves  and  declares  is  no  baptism  ?  Yet  this  is  what  you 
so  modestly  require  her  to  do,  when  you  deny  to  her  the 
right  to  exclude  from  her  communion  the  sprinkled  and 
the  poiared-on  members  of  Pedobaptist  societies.  If 
sprinkling  and  pouring  are  not  baptism,  then  they  have 
not  been  baptized ;  and  if  they  have  not  been  baptized, 
then  they  are  not  Scripturally  prepared  for  communion." 

"  But  how  is  it  made  so  certain,"  asked  Mrs.  Ernest, 


380  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

"that  no  one  can  be  permitted  to  commune  who  has  not 
been  baptized  ?  I  know  it  is  the  common  practice  of 
the  churches  of  all  denominations,  but  I  don't  remember 
any  express  declaration  of  Scripture  on  which  it  rests." 

"It  is  not  necessary,  madam,  to  have  any  express 
precept,  when  we  have  a  plain  and  unmistakable  exam 
ple.  But  in  regard  to  this  point,  we  have  what  is  equiva 
lent  to  both. 

"  We  have  the  often  repeated  command — Repent  and 
be  baptized,  believe  and  be  baptized — showing  that  bap 
tism  was  at  once  to  follow  penitence  and  faith,  without 
any  intervening  act.  Then  we  have  the  unvarying  ex 
ample,  many  thousand  times  repeated,  showing  that  this 
command  was  thus  understood  and  thus  literally  obeyed. 
They  believed  and  were  baptized.  Baptism  instantly 
followed  the  profession  of  their  faith,  leaving  no  time 
for  the  observance  of  any  other  rite  between ;  and  then 
we  read,  Acts  ii.  46,  that  after  their  baptism  they  con 
tinued  '  in  breaking  of  bread.' 

"  Moreover,  the  sacrament  of  the  Supper  is  a  church 
ordinance.  It  was  ordained  to  be  observed  by  the  church, 
assembled  together  in  a  church  capacity.  And  of  course 
no  one  could  participate  in  it  but  church  members.  And 
no  one  has  ever  been  regarded  as  a  church  member  till 
he  had  been  baptized.  This  was  the  door  of  entrance, 
the  initiatory  rite  by  which  one  was  received  among  and 
united  to  the  people  of  God,  and  so  became  entitled  to 
the  privileges  of  the  visible  kingdom  of  Christ.  Hence 
the  Apostle,  in  writing  to  the  ancient  churches,  fre 
quently  alluded  to  their  baptism ;  always  addressing 
them  as  baptized  persons,  who  had  put  on  Christ  in 
baptism  ;  who  had  been  buried  with  him  by  baptism ; 
who  had  been  planted  together  with  him  by  baptism ; 
who  had  been  in  a  certain  sense  regenerated  by  baptism ; 
and  who  were  in  some  sort  saved  by  baptism.  This  is 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  381 

so  evident  that  no  sect  or  denomination  have  ever  con 
sidered  the  unbaptized  as  church  members  and  commu 
nicants.  The  open  communion  Baptists  are,  so  far  as  I 
know,  the  first  and  the  only  Christians  who  have  advo 
cated  the  giving  of  the  communion  to  those  whom  they 
regarded  as  unbaptized. 

"  That  godly,  learned  man  and  excellent  commentator, 
Dr.  Doddridge,  author  of  '  The  Rise  and  Progress  of 
Religion  in  the  Soul, ''and  many  other  excellent  works, 
says :  '  It  is  certain  that  Christians  in  general  have 
always  been  spoken  of  as  baptized  persons  by  the  most 
ancient  Fathers,  and  it  is  also  certain,  so  far  as  our 
knowledge  of  primitive  Christianity  extends,  that  no 
unbaptized  person  received  the  Lord's  Supper.' — (Mis 
cellaneous  Works,  p.  510.)  Dr.  Wall,  the  great  cham 
pion  of  Pedobaptism,  says  expressly :  '  No  church  ever 
gave  the  communion  to  any  persons  before  they  were 
baptized.'  'Among  all  the  absurdities  that  ever  were 
held,  none  ever  maintained  that  any  persons  should 
partake  of  the  communion  before  they  were  baptized.' 
Lord  Chancellor  King,  of  the  Church  of  England,  in 
his  work  on  the  Church,  says,  page  196 :'  Baptism  was 
always  precedent  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  none  ever  re 
ceived  the  Eucharist  till  he  had  been  baptized.'  And 
those  who  might  have  any  doubt  about  this,  he  refers  to 
the  testimony  of  Justin  Martyr,  who  describes  the  prac 
tice  of  the  primitive  churches  in  his  famous  'Apology,' 
addressed  to  the  Roman  Emperor,  about  the  year  A.  D. 
138  or  139.  You  will  find  a  translation  of  so  much  of 
this  memorable  document  as  refers  to  this  subject,  in 
one  of  your  own  historians,  Rev.  Lyman  Coleman's 
Apostolical  and  Primitive  Church,  page  340.  '  After 
baptizing  the  believer  and  making  him  one  with  us,  we 
conduct  him  to  the  brethren,  as  they  are  called,  where 
are  assembled  fervently  to  ofier  up  their  common 


THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

f 

supplication  for  themselves,  for  him  who  has  been 
illuminated,  and  for  all  men  everywhere,  that  we  may 
live  worthy  of  the  truth  which  we  have  learned,  and  be 
found  to  have  kept  the  commandments,  so  that  we  may 
be  saved  with  an  everlasting  salvation.  After  prayer, 
we  salute  one  another  with  a  kiss.  After  this,  bread  and 
a  cup  of  wine  and  water  are  brought  to  the  president, 
which  he  takes,  and  offers  up  praise,  etc.'" 

"  Oh,  that  is  enough,  Mr.  Courtney.  I  did  not  want 
to  know  what  Justin  Martyr,  or  Lord  King,  or  Dr. 
Wall,  or  any  body  else  said  about  it,  but  only  what  was 
in  the  Scriptures.  If  I  understand  aright,  you  Bap 
tists  claim  that  your  faith  and  practice  rests  exclusively 
on  them." 

"  That  is  very  true,  Mrs.  Ernest ;  but  I  thought  it 
might  be  satisfactory  to  you  to  know  that  the  same 
Scriptures  which  have  led  us  to  require  baptism  as  an 
essential  prerequisite  to  communion,  have  been  equally 
able  to  convince  all  our  most  learned  and  zealous  oppo 
nents,  so  that  in  whatever  else  we  may  be  found  to  dif 
fer,  we  agree  in  this.  A  sect  of  the  Baptists  themselves 
are,  I  believe,  the  first  and  only  people  who  have  ever 
attempted  to  show  from  the  Scriptures  that  the  commu 
nion  of  the  church  may  be  shared  with  the  unbaptized ; 
and  they  were  led  to  this  evidently  from  their  desire  to 
be  free  from  the  reproach  of  close  communion.  They 
could  not  deny  that  immersion  was  the  only  baptism, 
and  therefore  they  could  not  but  regard  their  sprinkled 
brethren  as  unbaptized,  and  they  could  only  commune 
with  them  by  denying  that  baptism  was  an  essential  pre 
requisite  to  the  Eucharist.  But  not  even  Robert  Hall, 
who  was  the  leader,  or  at  least,  the  ablest  champion  of 
his  sect,  with  all  his  vast  learning  and  surpassing  elo 
quence,  could  persuade  the  Pedobaptists  that  they 
ought  to  dispense  with  baptism  in  their  communicants, 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  383 

though  many  of  them  and  some  Baptists  profess  to  have 
been  convinced  that  Baptists  ought  to  dispense  with  it 
in  regard  to  those  who  wish  to  approach  their  table. 
But  the  great  body  of  the  Baptist  Churches  still  agree 
with  their  Pedobaptist  brethren  in  requiring  baptism 
before  communion,  and  we  must  continue  to  do  so  till 
some  one  can  find  in  the  Scriptures  some  precept  or  ex 
ample  for  reversing  the  order  so  plainly  established  by 
Christ  and  the  Apostles,  which  places  repentance  and 
faith  first,  then  baptism,  and  then  the  breaking  of  bread 
and  the  other  ordinances  of  the  church  of  God. 

"  It  is  as  evident  as  any  thing  can  be,  that  if  any  Jew 
or  Gentile  had  professed  his  faith  in  Christ  in  the  Apos 
tles'  days,  and  yet  had  neglected  or  refused  to  put  on 
Christ  in  his  holy  ordinance  of  baptism,  he  would 
never  have  been  invited  to  the  privileges  of  a  church 
member." 

"  Of  course  he  would  not  have  been,"  replied  the 
Doctor,  "for  there  was  then  no  room  at  all  for  doubt 
about  the  nature  or  the  subjects  of  baptism.  The  Apos 
tles  had  the  act  visibly  set  before  their  eyes  by  Christ 
himself.  And  the  people  all  knew  what  was  intended 
when  they  were  commanded  to  be  baptized.  If  any  one 
refused  or  neglected  to  obey,  it  was  prima  facie  evi 
dence  that  he  was  no  Christian,  and  consequently  an 
unfit  subject  for  communion.  It  showed  that  he  either 
did  not  believe  or  was  disobedient  at  heart.  The  early 
churches,  therefore,  were  bound  to  reject  all  who  would 
not  be  baptized.  But  now  the  case  is  very  different. 
The  mode  of  baptism  has  now,  in  many  minds,  become 
a  matter  of  great  uncertainty.  Some  think  it  is  one 
thing  and  some  another ;  and  some  think  it  any  one 
of  three  things.  Now,  since  good  Christians  may  thus, 
while  they  seek  and  intend  to  do  right,  yet  fall  into 
the  wrong,  how  can  any  church  take  it  upon  herself 


384  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

4 

to  decide  that  one  of  these  modes  is  right  and  all  others 
are  wrong,  and  so  exclude  all  who  do  not  conform  to 
her  standard  ?  for  now  a  failure  to  conform  is  not,  as 
in  the  Apostles'  days,  an  evidence  of  an  unbelieving 
or  a  rebellious  spirit,  but  only  of  a  mistaken  appre 
hension  of  duty,  into  which  the  most  sincere  and  pious 
Christian  is  liable  to  fall." 

•'  I  acknowledge,  Doctor,  that  this  argument  has  a 
great  deal  of  plausibility  about  it.  It  is  the  best  that 
can  be  offered  in  favor  of  open  communion,  and  has 
succeeded  in  imposing  upon  the  minds  of  some  eminent 
Baptists.  But  now,  if  you  will  give  me  your  candid 
attention  for  a  few  minutes,  I  will  show  you  that  it  is 
utterly  destitute  of  any  Scriptural  foundation  or  logical 
force." 

"  You  speak  very  confidently,  sir,  and  I  will  gladly 
give  you  the  attention  you  require ;  but  if  you  can  do 
what  you  sa}r,  I  will  concede  that  you  are  a  master  in 
logic — for  I  conceive  it  perfectly  unanswerable." 

"  I  know,  Doctor,  that  it  is  the  best  and  strongest  ar 
gument  which  can  be  made  for  open  communion ;  and 
yet  I  am  sure  I  can  satisfy  you  that  it  ought  not  to  have 
the  very  slightest  iveight  in  the  decision  of  this  contro 
versy — because  it  has  not  even  the  shadow  of  a  founda 
tion  in  the  Word  of  God  on  which  to  rest.  But  before  I 
enter  upon  it  further,  I  will,  with  your  consent,  go  back 
and  take  up  the  first  general  proposition  which  I  pur 
posed  to  establish  when  we  entered  upon  this  discussion, 
and  that  was,  as  you  will  recollect,  That  every  church 
of  Christ  has  the  exclusive  right  within  herself  to  decide 
who  shall  be  partakers  of  her  communion.  We  have 
seen  already  in  what  manner  your  church  and  others  are 
accustomed  to  exercise  this  right.  It  is  simply  the 
right  to  determine  who  shall  be  entitled  to  the  privileges 
of  membership — a  right  which  must  of  necessity  belong 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  385 

to   every  such   organization  in   order   to  preserve  its 
purity  or  perpetuity." 

"I  do  not,"  said  the  Doctor,  "feel  disposed  to  dispute 
with  you  about  this.  If  a  Baptist  church  is  a  church  of 
Christ,  I  am  willing  to  grant  that  within  certain  limits 
it  is  to  judge  of  the  qualifications  of  its  members  and 
communicants. " 

"What  are  the  'limits,'  Doctor,  to  which  you  refer?" 

"The  requirements  of  the  Scriptures.  She  is  to 
require  only  such  qualifications  as  the  Scriptures  de 
mand." 

"But  who  is  to  judge  of  what  the  Scriptures  de 
mand,  Doctor,  the  church  or  the  applicants  for  her 
communion  ?" 

"  She  must,  of  course,  judge  for  herself.  The  Scrip 
ture  is  given  for  her  guidance.  She  must  examine  for 
herself,  and  be  governed  by  her  understanding  of  its 
instructions.  Those  who  are  not  of  her  membership  can 
have  no  right  to  dictate  to  her  in  the  matter  of  their  own 
reception — that  is  self-evident." 

"  But  now,  Doctor,  what  if  she  should,  upon  a  careful 
examination  of  the  Scriptures,  come  to  the  conclusion, 
as  your  church  has  done,  that  no  one  is  permitted  to 
commune  that  has  not  been  baptized  ?" 

"  Then  as  a  matter  of  course  she  will  do  as  we  do — 
admit  none  who  have  not  been  baptized." 

"  But  suppose  she  should  come  to  the  additional  con 
clusion  that  sprinkling  and  pouring  are  not  baptism, 
and  that,  contrary  to  the  decision  of  your  church,  dip- 
jn'iifj  of  the  person  in  the  water  is  necessary  to  constitute 
a  Scriptural  baptism — what  then  ?" 

"  Why,  then  I  suppose  she  must  admit  none  who  have 
not  been  thus  'dipped,'  for  she  cannot  recognize  any 
others  as  baptized." 

H'  course   she  must.     That  is  self-evident.     And 
33 


386  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

now,  Doctor,  I  trust  you  see  the  fallacy  of  your  boasted" 
argument  for  open  communion ;  for  if  every  church  is 
to  decide  for  herself  who  shall  commune,  subject  only 
to  the  laws  of  Christ,  and  if  she  is  to  be  the  interpreter 
and  judge  of  these  laws,  and  should  be  led  to  determine 
that  these  laws  demand  that  every  communicant  shall 
have  been  immersed,  what  could  she  do  for  those  who 
had  been  only  sprinkled  or  poured  upon  ?  Must  she 
not  reject  them,  however  good  and  pious  they  might  be  ? 
They  may  be  sincere  and  honest — they  may  be  intelli 
gent  and  learned ;  but  they  are  not  to  decide  this 
question  for  the  church.  Those  without  cannot  dictate 
the  terms  of  communion  to  those  who  are  within.  The 
church  must  for  herself  examine.  For  herself  she 
must  decide,  and  upon  her  own  decision  she  must  act. 
What  if  the  nature  of  baptism  be  the  subject  of  doubt 
to  many  good  and  holy  men — she  as  a  church  has  noth 
ing  to  do  with  their  doubts,  unless  they  are  her  own 
members.  What  if  good  and  pious  men,  seeking  to 
go  right,  do  sometimes  go  wrong,  she  as  a  church  is 
not  to  forsake  what  she  thinks  right,  and  go  wrong 
too,  merely  to  accommodate  them.  On  the  contrary, 
she  is  to  stand  firmly,  like  a  great  rock  in  the  wilder 
ness,  a  fixed  and  settled  way-mark,  which  men  may  see 
afar  off  in  their  wanderings,  and  by  it  be  guided 
back  into  the  old  paths.  If  others,  like  the  mariner  at 
sea  without  his  chart  and  compass,  wander  to  and  fro, 
being  wafted  about  with  every  wind  of  doctrine — she  is 
to  stand  like  the  light-house,  against  whose  base  the 
winds  and  waves  beat  alike  in  vain,  standing  ever  erect, 
and  sending  far  across  the  ocean  of  doubts  and  uncer 
tainties  the  calm  and  changeless  light  by  which  they  may 
direct  their  course  into  the  destined  haven. 

"  Now  look  at  your  argument  again.     In  the  days  of 
the  Apostles,  every  one  knew  certainly  what  baptism 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  387 

was,  and  every  church  was  bound  to  exclude  all  who 
had  not  been  baptized.  But  now,  many  good  and  pious 
people  have  become  doubtful  what  baptism  is.  Some 
think  it  one  thing,  and  some  another  ;  and  therefore  no 
church  of  Jesus  Christ  ought  to  have  any  opinion  about 
it ;  and  every  one  ought  to  be  received  who  thinks  him 
self  baptized.  The  church  has  no  right  to  decide  even 
as  to  what  constitutes  the  very  act  by  which  men  are 
admitted  to  her  membership,  or  as  to  who  shall  be 
permitted  to  enjoy  the  peculiar  and  distinctive  privi 
leges  of  members.  This  must  all  be  left  to  the  good 
and  pious,  without  her  ranks,  to  determine  for  her.  If 
they  have  doubts,  she  must  give  up  her  right  to  deter 
mine  for  herself,  and  humbly  receive  those  who  judge 
themselves  to  be  worthy  and  well  qualified,  although 
she  may  have  no  doubts  at  all.  Do  you  not  see,  that  if 
the  principle  on  which  your  argument  rests  be  once 
admitted,  it  will  destroy  not  only  the  independence,  but 
the  very  organization  of  the  churches  ?  The  principle 
is  this — A  Baptist  Church  has  decided  that  certain 
prerequisites  are  needful  to  her  membership  or  commu 
nion  ;  but  there  are  certain  persons,  out  of  her  ranks, 
who  think  she  ought  not  to  require  these  preliminaries, 
and  demand  the  privileges  of  church  members  without 
having  complied  with  them.  The  church  consents  to 
their  demand — admits  them  on  their  terms — abandons 
her  own  judgment,  and  repudiates  her  own  rules — does 
she  not  at  once  lose  her  distinctive  character,  and  cease 
to  be  a  Baptist  Church  ?  Is  she  a  church  at  all,  when 
those  without  make  laws  for  her — decide  questions  of 
faith  and  practice  for  her,  and  determine  who  shall  take 
the  place  of  members  at  her  table,  and  by  what  rules 
she  shall  exercise  her  discipline  ? — for  if  they  determine 
that  she  has  no  right  to  exclude  a  member  for  want  of 
baptism,  they  can,  of  course,  with  equal  reason  deter- 


388  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

•r 

mine  that  she  has  no  right  to  exclude  any  one  for  any 
other  cause. 

"  Look  at  your  argument  again.  It  takes  it  for 
granted,  that  because  you  and  some  other  good  and 
pious  men  doubt  about  the  nature  of  the  act  of  baptism, 
that  therefore  NO  ONE  can  arrive  at  any  certainty  in  re 
gard  to  it ;  and  therefore  no  church  of  Christ  has  any 
right  to  take  any  decisive  action  in  regard,  to  it.  If  this 
be  true  in  respect  to  baptism,  it  is,  of  course,  equally  so 
in  regard  to  other  things  ;  and  the  necessary  result  will 
be,  that  no  church  has  a  right,  in  regard  to  any  subject, 
to  hold  opinions,  and  to  act  upon  them,  if  good  and 
pious  people  of  other  denominations  chance  to  differ 
from  them.  Your  argument,  if  it  is  good  for  any  thing 
at  all,  destroys  all  church  independence  and  all  church 
sovereignty,  and  makes  it  necessary  for  every  church 
of  Christ  to  go  out  and  ask  those  who  are  not  of  her 
membership,  and  have  no  special  interest  in  her  affairs, 
what  she  may  believe,  and  teach,  and  do  ;  and  this  in 
regard  to  matters  which  are  to  her  of  the  most  vital  im 
portance,  involving  her  very  existence,  by  determining 
for  her  who  she  shall  admit  to  the  privileges  of  member 
ship." 

"  Oh,  no,  Mr.  Courtney,  I  did  not  intend  to  intimate 
that  the  church  had  no  right  to  deny  membership  to 
those  who  might  sincerely  and  honestly  differ  from  her 
on  matters  about  which  good  men  have  not  been  able  to 
agree.  But  we  were  speaking  of  only  occasional  com 
munion." 

"  The  principle  is  the  same,  Doctor,  whether  the  com 
munion  be  occasional  or  continual.  If  he  may  commune 
once,  why  not  twice  ?  If  twice,  why  not  a  dozen  times — 
and,  indeed,  every  time  the  table  is  spread  ?  And  if 
he  may,  of  right,  continually  enjoy  this  peculiar  and 
distinctive  privilege  of  church  membership,  why  not 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  389 

every  other  privilege  ?  If  we  have  no  right  to  exclude 
you  from  communing  with  us  occasionally,  we  have  none 
to  exclude  you  perpetually — and  if  we  have  no  right  to 
exclude  you,  who  are  not  a  member  of  our  church,  we 
could  not,  of  course,  exclude  one  who  is  a  member  for 
a  similar  cause.  Your  right  to  determine  for  a  church 
the  terms  of  its  communion,  includes  the  right  to  de 
termine  for  it  any  other  principle  of  faith  or  practice. 
If  you  may  dictate  who  shall  commune  once,  you  may 
with  equal  propriety  dictate  who  shall  commune  all  the 
time.  And  yet,  you  modestly  require  us,  because  for 
sooth  you  and  some  other  good  and  pious  men  are 
doubtful  about  the  nature  of  baptism,  to  yield  our  con 
victions  to  your  doubts,  and  assure  us  that  we  have  no 
right  to  decide  for  ourselves  upon  the  nature  of  the  very 
act  of  initiation  into  our  membership — forgetting,  of 
course,  that  your  own  church  has  positive^  decided  for 
herself,  page  146  of  the  Confession,  where  she  declares 
that  'dipping  of  the  person  in  water  is  not  necessary;' 
and  on  page  431  (chap.  vii.  of  Directory),  where  she 
absolutely  requires  the  minister  to  '  baptize  the  child 
with  water,  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  it  on  the  face  of 
the  child,  without  adding  any  other  ceremony.'  Pres 
byterians  can  decide  for  themselves  what  baptism  is  ;  so 
can  Methodists ;  so  can  Lutherans ;  so  can  Episco 
palians  ;  so  can  Roman  Catholics ;  so  can  every  body 
else  who  will  decide  that  it  is  sprinkling  or  pouring. 
But  if  the  Baptists  claim  the  same  privilege,  they  are 
counted  guilty  of  the  most  unheard-of  presumption,  and 
all  the  Pedobaptist  world  desires  to  know  by  what 
authority  they  venture,  like  other  churches,  to  think 
for  themselves,  investigate  for  themselves,  and  come 
to  their  own  conclusions;  or,  if  they  must  think,  and 
investigate,  and  decide,  yet  you  demand  to  know  how 


390  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

*  » 

they  can  dare  to  carry  out  their  convictions  in  their 
practice." 

"  Oh,  no,  Mr.  Courtney,  we  do  not,"  said  Mrs.  Jones, 
"  object  to  your  deciding  for  yourselves.  It  is  to  the 
nature  of  your  decision  that  we  object.  If  you  had 
decided,  like  all  the  rest  of  the  Christian  world,  that 
baptism  was  sprinkling  or  pouring,  or  that  it  was  of 
little  consequence  which  way  it  was  done,  no  one  could 
object  to  your  exercise  of  the  abstract  right  to  decide 
for  yourselves.  But  we  do  think  it  is  evidence  of  either 
bigotry  or  self-conceit,  when  you  set  up  your  opinions 
against  the  whole  religious  world." 

"  Your  idea  of  church  independence,  then,  is  simply 
this :  Every  Baptist  church  has  a  full  and  perfect  right 
to  think  and  decide  for  herself  on  all  matters  of  faith 
and  practice,  provided  she  will  always  think  and  decide 
just  as  your  church  does. 

"  But,  Doctor,  I  have  another  objection  to  your  argu 
ment,  which  makes  me  wonder  how  it  could  ever  for  a 
single  moment  have  imposed  upon  any  thinking  Baptist 
— and  that  is,  that  it  assumes,  and  takes  for  granted  as 
the  very  basis  on  which  it  rests,  that  no  one  now  can  cer 
tainly  know  what  the  act  of  baptism  was.  In  the  days 
of  the  Apostles,  you  say,  there  could  not  be  any  doubt 
about  this,  and  therefore  all  who  would  not  be  baptized, 
must  of  necessity  have  been  excluded  ;  but  now  it  is  so 
very  uncertain,  that  good  men,  meaning  to  go  right, 
may  yet  go  wrong,  and  must  not  on  that  account  be 
excluded.  Let  us  look  at  it  again  in  this  light.  The 
Apostles  knew  what  baptism  was,  for  they  had  seen  the 
Saviour  himself  baptized.  The  early  churches  knew, 
for  they  had  seen  the  Apostles  baptize  according  to 
the  pattern  which  Jesus  showed  in  Jordan.  But  we 
who  live  in  these  ends  of  the  earth,  are  entirely  de 
pendent  for  our  information  on  the  written  Word  of 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  391 

God.  The  Holy  Spirit  of  Inspiration  attempted  to  con 
vey  to  us  in  writing  such  an  account  of  the  organiza 
tion  of  a  church,  and  the  ordinances  of  Christ's  visible 
kingdom,  that  we  might  continue  them  to  the  end  of 
time ;  but  he  made  such  bungling  work  of  it,  that  it  is 
now  absolutely  impossible  to  find  out  what  he  meant. 
We  can  neither  know  who  were  the  persons  to  be  initi 
ated,  nor  by  what  act  they  are  to  bo  brought  in. 

"It  is  true,  that  he  commanded  people  first  to  believe 
and  then  to  be  baptized.  It  is  true,  that  he  never,  in  a 
single  instance,  commanded  any  one  to  be  baptized 
who  had  not  believed.  And  that  there  is  not  in  the 
record  a  single  case  in  which  any  but  a  professed  be 
liever  ever  was  baptized,  nor  is  there  a  single  allusion, 
direct  or  indirect,  to  the  baptism  of  an  unconscious 
babe.  And  yet  men  say,  that  no  one  now  can  certainly 
determine  that  he  did  not  command,  and  does  not  now 
require,  that  little  infants  who  cannot  believe  or  perform 
any  act  of  intelligent  worship,  shall  be  baptized,  and 
thus  made  members  of  his  churches. 

"  True,  his  people  are  always  spoken  of  as  a  renewed 
and  regenerated  people ;  as  a  holy  and  peculiar  people, 
zealous  of  good  works.  The  churches  of  the  Scriptures 
were  addressed  as  active,  intelligent,  and  pious  people. 
And  we  know,  from  sad  and  frequent  observation,  that 
the  baptism  of  an  infant  does  not  regenerate  it  or  make 
it  any  holier  than  it  was  before.  We  know  that  baptized 
children  do  not,  on  account  of  their  baptism,  grow  up 
servers  of  God  and  of  his  laws,  yet  no  one  now  can  tell 
that  Christ  did  not  require  these  unconverted  children 
of  wrath  and  heirs  of  hell,  to  be  brought  into  his  church 
and  counted  among  its  members. 

"And  then  as  regards  the  act  of  initiation,  which 
the  Scriptures  call  baptism,  your  argument  takes  for 
granted  that  nobody  can  now  tell  what  it  was.  True, 


392  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

the  very  word  itself  declares  that  it  was  immersion,  if  * 
we  should  read  it  as  we  do  in  any  other  book.  No 
scholar  ever  dreamed  of  its  meaning  to  sprinkle  or  to 
pour,  in  any  book  except  the  Bible,  nor  in  any  part  of 
the  Bible  but  the  New  Testament,  nor  in  any  place  in 
the  New  Testament  where  it  does  not  refer  to  the  ordi 
nance.  Everywhere  else  its  signification  is  sufficiently 
plain.  When  Josephus,  writing  in  the  same  language, 
and  about  the  same  time  with  the  Evangelists,  speaks 
of  a  youth  being  baptised  in  a  lake  till  he  was  drowned, 
no  scholar  ever  doubted  that  the  lad  was  dipped.  When 
he  speaks  of  a  ship  being  baptized  in  the  sea,  no  one  ever 
ventured  to  doubt  that  he  meant  to  say  it  was  sunk. 
No  one  ever  doubted  what  Hippocrates  means  when  he 
speaks  of  the  surgeon  baptizing  his  probe  into  a  wound. 
No  one  doubts  what  Homer  means  when  he  speaks  of 
the  blacksmith  baptizing  a  huge  pole  axe  in  water  to 
harden  the  steel.  Those  who  are  engaged  in  teaching 
our  young  men  a  knowledge  of  the  Greek  language, 
never  have  any  difficulty  in  deciding  about  the  meaning 
of  this  word  in  any  of  the  poets,  or  philosophers,  or  his 
torians  of  Greece.  The  Lexicons  of  the  language  all 
agree  in  giving  'to  dip,1  'to  plunge,'  as  at  least  its  pri 
mary  and  most  common  signification ;  and  no  one  of 
them  gives  to  sprinkle  or  to  pour — and  yet  you  say,  uc 
one  can  tell  for  certain  that  this  word  means  to  dip,  and 
not  to  sprinkle  or  to  pour. 

"  It  is  true,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Barnes, 
that  this  word  is  used  in  the  New  Testament  in  the 
place  of  the  Hebrew  word '  tabal.'  And  Professor  Stuart, 
one  of  your  own  ablest  scholars,  expressly  says,  that 
this  word  tabal  always  means  '  to  dip.'  It  is  true  that  in 
the  fifteen  places  where  Dr.  Barnes  says  it  occurs  in  the 
Old  Testament,  it  is  translated  'dip'  or' plunge,' in  every 
place  but  one,  and  there  it  is  'dyed,'  which  supposed 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  393 

a  previous  act  of  clipping,  yet  no  one  can  know  that  it 
does  not  mean  to  sprinkle  or  to  pour. 

"  It  is  true,  that  your  most  eminent  Biblical  scholars, 
as  Stuart,  Kitto,  Chalmers,  and  McKnight,  agree  that 
it  meant  immerse,  and  state  expressly  that  immersion 
was  the  act  which  was  performed  in  the  first  churches ; 
and  yet  3*011  say,  no  one  can  certainly  know  what  it  was 
which  Christ  commanded,  and  the  church  must  now  re 
quire. 

"  It  is  true,  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  if  to  obviate  the  very 
possibility  of  any  misunderstanding,  makes  frequent 
and  varied  allusions  to  it  in  the  Word,  speaking  of  it  as 
a  burial,  a  bath,  and  the  like.  True,  he  has  gone  into 
particulars,  so  far  as  to  explain  that  it  was  done  in  the 
'  rivers,'  and  places  where  there  was  '  much  water :'  and 
that  they  went  down  into  the  water  to  do  it,  and  came 
up  out  of  the  water  after  it  was  done ;  and  yet  we  can't 
know  any  thing  about  what  it  was. 

"  True,  the  history  of  the  early  churches,  written  by 
the  sprinklers  themselves,  as  the  Magdeburg  Centuria- 
tors,  Moshcim  and  Neander,  clearly  shows  that,  in  the 
language  of  the  London  Quarterly,  devoted  to  the  inter 
ests  of  the  Church  of  England,  '  There  can  be  no  ques 
tion  that  the  original  form  of  baptism — the  very 
meaning  of  the  word — was  complete  immersion,  and 
that  for  at  least  four  centuries  any  other  form  was  either 
unknown  or  regarded  as  an  exceptional,  almost  a  mon 
strous  case.' 

"  True,  we  can  show  from  ancient  rituals  and  church 
canons,  that  for  more  than  thirteen  hundred  years  it 
was  the  only  act  recognized  as  baptism,  except  in  cases 
of  alarming  sickness. 

"True,  we  have  the  most  unexceptionable  records, 
made  by  the  sprinklers  themselves,  showing  the  very 
time  and  manner  of  the  change  from  immersion  to 


394 


THEODOSTA    ERNEST. 


sprinkling,  and  the  very  decree  of  the  Pope,  on  whose 
authority  it  was  done ;  and  yet  you  take  for  granted 
that  no  Baptist  Church  now  can  tell  for  certain  which  it 
was  that  Christ  commanded.  And  on  this  ground  }rou 
demand  as  a  right  that  she  shall  give  to  those  who  have 
submitted  to  the  Pope's  ordinance  of  sprinkling,  under 
the  false  impression  that  it  was  baptism,  the  same 
church  privileges  that  she  offers  to  those  who  have 
entered  into  Christ's  visible  kingdom  through  the  door 

O  ™ 

which  he  appointed. 

"  If  you  have  any  doubts  about  the  nature  of  baptism 
or  the  subjects  of  baptism,  you  may  plead  them  for 
what 'they  are  worth  before  his  bar  to  whom  we  all 
must  give  account ;  but  you  must  not  expect  Baptist 
Churches  to  participate  in  them,  or  to  act  as  though  it 
were  to  them  a  matter  about  which  there  was  even  the 
slightest  uncertainty.  If  there  are  any  two  things  which 
they  are  satisfied  are  clearly  and  definitely  set  forth  in 
the  Word  of  God,  they  are,  that  believers  are  the  only 
persons  commanded  to  be  baptized,  and  that  those  com 
manded  to  be  baptized  are  commanded  to  be  immersed. 
They  have  therefore  not  even  the  shadow  of  a  doubt 
that  you  are  unbaptized,  and  if  baptism  is  a  Scriptural 
prerequisite,  as  3^011  yourselves  believe  and  teach,  then 
you  are  not  prepared  and  cannot  claim  communion  at 
their  hands,  unless  you  undertake  to  decide  for  them 
whom  they  shall  consider  as  baptized." 

"  Oh,  we  are  willing  to  acknowledge,"  replied  Mrs. 
Jones,  "  that  we  cannot  demand  it  as  a  matter  of  right. 
But  the  courtesy,  Mr.  Courtney.  What  we  may  not 
demand  as  a  right,  we  surely  may  claim  on  the  ground 
of  Christian  courtesy  and  kindness — I  had  almost  said 
upon  the  ground  of  common  politeness.  And  now  I 
ask  you  seriously  to  say  if  you  do  not  think  that  you 
•Baptists  are  selfish  and  discourteous,  to  say  the  least, 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  395 

in  your  refusal  to  invite  any  but  immersed  believers  to 
sit  down  with  you  ?  You  admit  that  others  are  just  as 
good  Christians  as  yourselves,  do  you  not?" 

"  Certainly ;  we  do  not  refuse  because  you  are  not 
pious,  but  because  you  have  not  been  baptized.  And  you 
as  well  as  we  believe  that  the  Master  does  not  permit 
all  Christians,  but  only  all  Christians  who  are  members 
of  a  visible  church,  and  who  have  been  baptized.  You 
never  invite  a  person  to  your  communion  merely  be 
cause  you  consider  him  a  converted  man  and  a  good 
Christian.  You  wait  till  he  has  joined  the  church,  and 
been  baptized." 

"  But  we  think,"  said  Mrs.  Jones,  "  that  we  have 
been  baptized.  You  will  grant  that  we  are  as  sincere 
and  honest  in  our  opinions  as  you  are  in  yours.  The 
great  majority  of  the  Christian  world  think  our  opinion 
better  founded  than  yours :  would  it  not,  therefore,  be 
proper  and  becoming  in  you  to  show  so  much  respect 
to  the  decision  of  more  than  half  of  Christendom,  and 
so  much  Christian  liberality  to  those  who  conscien 
tiously  differ  from  you,  as  to  extend  your  invitation  to 
them,  not  of  right,  but  purely  out  of  courtesy  and 
politeness  ?" 

"  That  can  never  be  properly  called  Christian  cour 
tesy,  madam,  which  asks  for  the  sacrifice  of  Christian 
principle — and  I  am  quite  as  willing  to  meet  the 
demands  of  open  communion  on  this  ground  as  on 
the  other.  But  before  we  enter  into  the  argument,  I 
would  like  to  go  back  and  call  up  the  third  proposition, 
which  I  stated  at  the  beginning  of  this  discussion,  and 
that  is — That  no  church  can  either  neglect  or  refuse  to 
exercise  the  right  which  has  been  given  her  by  her  Head,  to 
preserve  the  purity  of  her  communion,  without  being  guilty 
of  open  rebellion  against  the  positive  requirements  of  the 
law  of  Christ. 


390  TIIEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

» 

"  We  have  already  seen  that  every  church  possesses 
this  right,  and  it  is  plain  that  the  duty  to  exercise  it  fol 
lows  from  its  possession.  Somebody  must  decide  who 
shall  be  communicants ;  if  not,  there  is  no  bar  between 
the  church  and  the  world.  If  every  one  who  chooses 
may  not  come,  who  shall  decide  who  may  ?  We  answer, 
the  church  herself." 

"By  what  rule?" 

"  By  the  law  of  Christ,  as  laid  down  in  his  word." 

"  May  she  not  neglect  or  refuse  to  decide  for  herself, 
and  leave  it  to  those  without  to  come  or  not  to  come, 
as  they  may  think  best  ?" 

"  Xo ;  for  God  has  constituted  her  the  guardian  of  his 
ordinances,  which  he  has  placed  within  her  gates." 

"But  may  she  not  reverse  his  order,  and  give  com 
munion  first,  and  then  baptism  ?" 

"  Xo  ;  she  must,  of  course,  be  governed  by  his  law." 

"  May  she  not  dispense  with  baptism  altogether  ?" 

"  Certainly  not,  if  his  law  requires  it." 

"  May  she  not  treat  all  those  as  baptized  who  think 
themselves  baptized  ?" 

"Xo;  she  is  to  be  governed  by  his  Word  as  she  un 
derstands  it,  and  not  as  it  may  be  understood  by  those 
without  her  ranks.  She  is  to  examine  and  decide  for 
herself.  She  is  to  recognize  and  treat  as  baptized  those 
only  whom  she  believes  to  have  actually  been  baptized 
according  to  the  Scripture  model.  She  is  not  the  law 
giver,  but  simply  the  executor  of  the  laws  of  Christ. 
She  is  not  at  liberty  to  set  them  aside  for  any  whims 
of  her  own.  Xor  is  she  at  liberty  to  enforce  one  part 
and  not  another.  If,  therefore,  he  requires  baptism  as 
a  prerequisite  to  communion,  she  dare  not  in  any  case 
refuse  or  neglect  to  do  so  also.  She  must  see  his  rules 
carried  out,  or  she  becomes  unfaithful  to  her  trust,  and 
a  rebel  to  her  Lord. 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  397 

"  If  you  have  any  doubt  that  each  church  is  consti 
tuted  thus  by  Christ  the  guardian  of  her  own  purity, 
and  of  the  sanctity  of  his  ordinances  as  administered 
within  her  doors,  I  refer  you  to  Romans  xiv.  5,  and 
2  Thess.  iii.  6,  in  which  the  power  of  the  church  to  de 
termine  whom  they  will  receive,  and  the  duty  of  the 
church  to  withdraw  from  every  one  who  walked  dis 
orderly,  is  distinctly  recognized.  But  both  the  right 
and  the  imperious  obligation  for  its  constant,  faithful, 
and  impartial  exercise,  follows  of  necessity  from  the 
simple  fact,  that  if  the  church  does  not  herself  exclude 
the  unprepared  and  the  unworthy,  there  is  no  one  to  do 
it ;  and  it  cannot  be  done  at  all. 

"  I  am  now  ready  to  answer  your  question  about  the 
Christian  courtesy  of  refusing  to  invite  the  unbaptized 
to  our  communion.  Permit  me  to  put  it  in  proper  form 
for  you,  and  let  us  see  how  it  will  sound.  We  will  sup 
pose  it  to  be  communion  day  at  the  Baptist  church,  and 
that  your  church  in  a  body  comes  to  our  door,  and  asks 
admission  to  our  table — not  as  a  matter  of  right,  but  on 
the  ground  of  Christian  courtesy.  You  say  to  us,  very 
affectionately  and  kindly — Dear  brethren  in  Christ,  we 
are  fully  persuaded  that  no- unbaptized  person,  accord 
ing  to  the  laws  of  our  Redeemer,  should  ever  be  per 
mitted  to  approach  his  table.  We  never  permit  any  to 
come  to  it  in  our  church  whom  we  do  not  believe  to  have 
been  baptized.  We  could  not  do  it  without  sinning 
against  God.  We  know  very  well,  brethren,  that  you 
act  upon  the  same  rule.  You  agree  with  us  that  it  would 
be  very  wrong  and  sinful  to  permit  any  to  approach 
your  table  whom  you  do  not  think  have  been  baptized. 
We  know,  also,  that  you  believe  that  we  have  not  been 
baptized,  and  consequently  that  you  cannot  permit  us  to 
approach  without  doing  what  you  would  regard  as  an  act 
of  open  and  deliberate  rebellion  against  the  laws  of  Christ. 
34 


398  TIIEODOS1A    ERNEST. 

But  we  regard  you  all  as  Christian  gentlemen  and  ladies, 
and  quite  familiar  with  the  laws  of  politeness  and  Chris 
tian  courtesy,  and  it  must  be  very  evident  to  you  that 
these  laws  require  you  to  invite  us  to  your  communion. 
You  surely  will  not  be  so  impolite  as  to  refuse  us.*' 

"Oh,  Mr.  Courtne}',  that  is  too  bad!  Surely  you 
have  no  right  to  look  upon  us  in  such  a  light  as  that !" 

"  I  am  well  aware,  madam,  that  your  people  have  not 
been  accustomed  to  see  in  this  light  your  claims  that 
we  should  invite  you  to  our  communion.  You  are  so 
accustomed  to  think  of  yourselves  as  baptized,  that  you 
cannot  fully  realize  the  fact  that  others  should  think 
differently.  But  thus  the  case  must  always  appear  to 
the  mind  of  any  well  informed  Baptist.  Nor  is  this  by 
any  means  the  worst  of  it. 

"  It  is  always  and  everywhere  considered  an  act  of 
great  discourtesy  to  ask  one  to  do  any  thing  which  it  is 
well  known  he  will  regard  as  a  moral  wrong,  though  it 
should  be  asked  of  him  only  as  a  private  individual,  and 
in  his  personal  capacity.  But  the  discourtesy  is  much 
greater  when  you  ask  him,  as  a  public  man,  in  his  official 
capacity,  and  in  direct  and  open  opposition  to  his  avowed 
and  publicly  acknowledged  •  sentiments,  to  do  what  not 
only  you  know  he  would  consider  wrong,  but  what  all 
the  world  knows,  or  might  know,  he  would  so  regard ; 
what  he  has  again  and  again  -publicly  declared  that  he 
could  not  do  without  a  grievoup  disregard  of  his  con 
scientious  convictions  of  right.  To  ask,  for  instance,  of 
a  Son  of  Temperance,  whom  you  know  is  pledged  not  to 
drink  intoxicating  liquors ;  whom  you  know  feels  that 
he  is  under  peculiar  and  solemn  obligations  not  to 
drink ;  yet  to  ask  him  not  merely  to  disregard  the  obli 
gation,  which  you  know,  and  which  the  world  knows, 
that  he  recognizes  as  binding  upon  his  conscience ;  but 
to  ask  him  to  do  it  publicly  and  officially  as  a  Son  of 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY. 

Temperance,  in  the  Division  room,  would  be  something 
such  an  act  of  discourtesy,  though  much  less  flagrant 
than  it  is  to  ask  a  Baptist,  as  a  Baptist,  in  his  public 
capacit}1-  as  a  church  member,  to  disregard  his  obliga 
tions  to  his  Saviour,  by  which  the  purity  of  the  church 
and  the  sanctity  of  the  ordinances  are  to  be  preserved." 

"  Oh,  dear,  no !  Please,  Mr.  Courtney,  don't  think  so 
hardly  of  us.  I  am  sure  none  of  our  ministers  or  mem 
bers  ever  intended  any  thing  of  the  sort  when  they  in 
vited  you  to  our  communion,  or  complained  that  you 
did  not  invite  us  to  yours.  We  never  thought  about  its 
being  a  matter  of  conscience  with  you." 

"  And  why  should  you  not  have  thought  of  it,  when 
we  have  preached  it  in  the  pulpit,  and  proclaimed  it 
through  the  press,  and  repeated  it  continually  in  private 
conversation  ?  No  one  need  be  ignorant  of  the  ground 
on  which  Baptists  stand  in  regard  to  this  question. 
Their  sentiments  have  been  long  and  plainly  before  the 
world.  There  is  no  one  who  has  any  occasion  to  com 
plain  of  them,  who  does  not  know,  or  might  not  know, 
that  they  cannot  dispense  with  what  they  conscientiously 
regard  as  Christian  baptism ;  and  that  on  this  account, 
and  not  from  any  impoliteness  or  discourtesy,  they  are 
debarred  from  inter-communion  with  sprinkled  Chris 
tians. 

"  But  I  have  not  done  with  this  question  of  courtesy. 
I  want  our  Pedobaptist  friends  to  see  precisely  where 
they  stand.  After  you  have  asked  us  to  disregard  the 
most  sacred  obligations,  to  repudiate  our  conscientious 
convictions  of  duty,  and  as  a  church,  in  our  assembled 
and  official  capacity,  to  refuse  obedience  to  what  you 
well  know  we  all  regard  as  the  imperative  law  of  Christ, 
and  to  perform  an  act  which  you  well  know  we  earnestly 
believe  he  has  forbidden ;  when  we  respectfully  decline 
to  do  it,  and  kindly  give  you  our  reasons,  you  set  up  a 


THEODOS1A   ERNEST. 

great  and  senseless  cry  of  bigotry,  of  selfishness,  of  ig 
norance,  and  (will  you  pardon  me  for  saying  it?)  OF 
CHRISTIAN  DISCOURTESY;  as  though  it  wero 
more  discourteous  for  us  firmly  to  resist  all  your  solicita 
tions  to  disregard  our  Master's  Word,  than  it  is  for  you, 
who  profess  like  us  to  love  him,  to  ask  us  to  do  it,  or 
complain  of  us  for  not  doing  it." 

"But  we  do  not  ask  you  to  do  what  we  think  wrong." 

"  No,  you  only  ask  us  to  do  what  you  know  WE  think 
wrong,  and  then  abuse  us  because  we  dare  not  do  it. 
But  let  it  pass.  I  should  think,  Doctor,  you  would  find 
some  serious,  if  not  insuperable  difficulties  in  your  plan 
of  inter-communion  with  other  denominations,  over 
whose  discipline  you  have  no  control/' 

"How  so?" 

"  Let  me  explain.  The  peculiar  and  distinctive  privi 
lege  of  a  church  member  in  good  standing  in  your  church, 
is  the  liberty  of  approach  to  the  Lord's  table.  When 
you  exclude  the  unworthy,  they  can  no  longer  be  per 
mitted  to  sit  down  with  you  at  this  sacred  feast.  Now 
suppose  you  exclude  a  member  to-day  for  heresy  in  doc 
trine,  or  irregularity  in  practice,  and  he  goes  to-morrow 
and  unites  with  some  other  denomination,  can  he  not, 
according  to  your  principles,  come  right  back,  and 
claim  a  seat  at  your  table  as  the  member  of  another  de 
nomination,  although  you  have  just  driven  him  away 
as  a  member  of  your  own?" 

"  That  might  possibly  happen  ;  but  I  do  not  think  we 
have  ever  been  much  troubled  with  cases  of  that  sort." 

"That  is  because  your  open  communion  is  held  in 
theory,  but  seldom  reduced  to  practice.  If  there  were, 
in  fact,  that  inter-communion  between  you  and  Baptists, 
which  many  of  you  profess  so  much  to  desire,  I  can 
conceive  that  it  might  happen  very  often,  to  the  utter 
destruction  of  any  effective  discipline  in  both  bodies. 


TENTH  WIGHT'S  STUDY. 

Let  us  see.  You  require  of  all  your  coinmmiicnnis  who 
have  children,  that  they  bring  them  to  the  church  for 
baptism,  do  you  not  ?" 

"Certainly;  it  is  the  solemn  duty  of  every  Christian 
parent  to  dedicate  his  offspring  to  God  in  this  hol3T  ordi 
nance  at  his  earliest  convenience." 

"  Very  good.  Now  suppose  some  one  of  them  should 
take  a  fancy  to  ask  you  for  the  text  on  which  this  re 
quiremeut  is  based.  You  might,  as  you  very  well  know, 
search  all  the  New  Testament,  from  Matthew  to  Ilevela 
tioii,  and  you  could  not  produce  a  solitary  precept  01 
example.  You  would  try  to  satisfy  him  with  a  wordy 
jargon  about  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  etc.  But  lie 
might  reply,  Jewish  children  were  circumcised  at  eight 
days  old,  because  God  commanded  it  to  be  done.  If 
Christian  children  are  to  be  baptized,  you  can  show 
where  he  commanded  that  " 

"  You  will  say — No,  but  a  command  was  not  neces 
sary  ;  they  were  to  be  baptized  as  a  matter  of  course. 

"  Yery  well,  then.  Of  course  it  icas  done,  and  you  can 
show  me  at  least  one  case  among  the  thousands  of  '  both 
men  and  women,'  in  which  there  was  one  little  child. 
But  you  can't  find  it.  And  he  begins  to  doiibt  the  pro 
priety  of  performing  as  an  ordinance  of  Christ,  what 
Christ  did  not  command.  lie  cannot  be  persuaded  to 
bring  up  the  little  ones  into  the  church.  You  exhort 
him  and  reason  with  him  in  vain  ;  and  you  are  obliged 
at  last  to  exclude  him.  I  have  read  of  such  a  case.  You 
exclude  him,  and  he  comes  to  us,  and  we  receive  him. 
Now  he  holds  the  same  opinions,  and  is  guilty  of  the 
same  practices.  But  though  you  could  not  commune 
with  him  as  a  member  of  your  own  church,  because  he 
was  guilty  of  the  heinous  sin  of  denying  infant  baptism, 
you  will  welcome  him  back  the  very  next  Sabbath  ss  a 
Baptist.  You  urge  him  to  sit  down  to  the  same  table 


402  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

from  which  you  have  just  now  formally  expelled  him. 
And  I  suppose,  if  he  should  decline  to  accept,  you  would 
henceforth  abuse  him  as  a  narrow-minded,  selfish,  bigoted, 
and  intolerant  Baptist,  who  thought  himself  too  good  to 
commune  with  other  Christians. 

"  The  same  thing  might  happen  to  us,  and  this 
furnishes  an  additional  reason  why  we  cannot  commune 
with  other  denominations.  I  have  said  we  could  not, 
because  you  were  in  our  view  unbaptized ;  and  that  is 
of  itself  an  unanswerable  and  all-sufficient  reason,  if 
there  were  no  other.  Bnt  there  is  another  growing  out 
of  this  matter  of  church  discipline.  Let  us  suppose  a 
case  for  illustration.  A  minister  in  our  church  has  im 
bibed  the  idea  that  the  sprinkling  ceremony,  which  you 
borrowed  from  the  Roman  Catholics,  is  valid  baptism, 
and  insists  upon  introducing  it  into  our  churches.  We 
would  regard  it  as  a  great  wrong.  We  would,  for  the 
peace  and  purity  of  our  communion,  at  once  expel  him, 
and  deny  him  the  privileges  of  the  church.  He  goes  to 
you,  and  you  receive  him  gladly,  and  the  very  next  day 
he  comes  back  and  claims,  as  a  member  of  your 
church,  privileges  which  we  had  just  now  formally 
denied  him  as  a  member  of  our  own.  Do  you  not  see 
that  this  rule,  carried  out  in  actual  practice,  must  neces 
sarily  destroy  the  force  of  all  attempts  at  church  dis 
cipline  ?" 

"  But  how  do  Baptists  now  avoid  that  difficulty 
among  themselves  ?" 

"  Very  easily  and  simply.  The  right  to  our  commu 
nion  never  extends  beyond  the  reach  of  our  discipline." 

"  Then  how  can  members  of  one  Baptist  Church 
claim  a  seat  at  the  table  of  another  ;  for,  if  I  understand 
your  church  polity,  every  one  of  your  churches  is  an 
independent  body." 

"  They  cannot  claim  it  as  a  right,  and  our  invitation 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  403 

to  commune  is  extended  by  courtesy  only  to  those 
whose  faith  and  practice  is  so  like  our  own,  that  no  per 
son  could  be  a  member  in  good  standing  with  them  who 
would  not  stand  equally  well  with  us. 

"  The  rule  adopted  by  Mr.  Wesley  (Discipline,  sec. 
5th),  and  which  is  founded  alike  in  Scriptural  principles 
and  common  sense,  is  the  same  in  substance  as  that 
which  regulates  our  practice.  That  is,  '  no  person  shall 
be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper  among  us,  who  is 
guilty  of  any  practice  for  which  we  would  exclude  a 
member  of  our  church.'  This  rule  you  see  at  once 
compels  us  to  deny  all  who  teach  and  practice  sprink 
ling  for  baptism,  and  all  who  engage  in  what  we  regard 
as  the  sinful  though  solemn  mockery  of  baptizing  un 
conscious  infants,  or  any  others  who  have  not  made  a 
personal  and  credible  profession  of  repentance  and 
faith,  according  to  the  plain  requirements  of  the  Word 
of  God,  which  always  and  everywhere  puts  repentance 
and  faith  before  baptism,  as  it  puts  baptism  before  com 
munion.  We  are  bound  to  this  course  by  that  solemn 
and  most  impressive  injunction  of  the  Apostles,  2 
Thess.  iii.  6 — '  Now  we  command  you,  brethren,  in  the 
name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  you  withdraw  your 
selves  from  every  brother  that  walketh  disorderly,  and 
not  after  the  tradition  which  ye  received  from,  us.J " 

"  I  declare,  Mr.  Courtney,"  said  Mrs.  Jones,  "  I  had 
no  idea  that  you  Baptists  had  so  good  and  satisfactory 
reasons  for  your  singular  exclusiveness  ;  and  I  promise 
you  now  that  I  will  never  complain  of  you  again.  In 
fact,  if  I  ever  become  a  Baptist,  I  shall  be  a  close  com 
munion  Baptist." 

"  I  do  not  see,"  said  Mrs.  Ernest,  "how  any  one  can 
take  the  Scripture  for  his  guide,  and  be  any  thing  else ; 
and  I  have  been  thinking  all  the  time  that  there  must  be 
some  good  Bible  reason  for  it,  or  else  Theodosia  and 


404  THEODOSIA    ERNEST 

her  uncle  would  not  have  agreed  to  it — but  now,  when  I ' 
come  to  think  of  it,  I  have  not  heard  either  of  them  say 
a  word  on  the  subject/' 

The  reader  will  recollect,  that  at  the  beginning  of  this 
conversation  Professor  Jones  had  gone  out  of  the  room, 
for  some  cause  at  that  time  unexplained.  He  returned 
after  a  few  minutes,  but  took  no  part  in  the  conversa 
tion,  in  which  indeed  he  seemed  to  feel  but  very  little 
interest.  Mrs.  Jones  had  quickly  noticed  his  abstracted 
manner,  so  different  from  his  ordinary  behaviour ;  and 
had  several  times  cast  an  uneasy  glance  into  his  face, 
hoping  to  read  there  the  cause.  But  she  could  only 
learn  that  it  was  in  some  way  connected  with  Theodo.-.ia, 
whom  he  loved  with  the  affection  of  a  father.  Each 
time  she  looked,  his  eye  was  resting  with  an  expression 
of  the  deepest  pit}^  upon  his  lovely  niece,  who  took  no 
more  part  in  the  conversation  than  himself.  In  truth  she 
had  spoken  very  little  to  any  one  since  the  appearance 
of  Mr.  Percy  at  the  court-house  on  the  preceding  night. 
His  relation  of  his  experience  of  grace,  and  his  declara 
tion  of  his  desire  to  be  baptized,  had  placed  him  in  a 
new  relation  to  her.  She  did  not  know  that  lie  had  then 
never  seen  her  letter — and  once  (but  only  for  a  moment) 
the  thought  intruded  into  her  heart  that  all  this  change 
had  been  made  for  her  sake,  and  not  for  Christ's.  She 
repelled  it,  however,  in  the  instant  that  it  came,  and  all 
day  long  had  held  herself  ready  to  welcome  him  back 
to  his  pla.ee  in  her  heart  as  her  betrothed,  and  felt  that 
she  could  love  him  now  with  an  affection  even  deeper 
and  more  intense,  higher  and  purer  and  holier  than  that 
which  with  such  agony  of  effort  she  had  been  trying  to 
strangle  in  her  heart.  She  thought  he  would  have  come 
and  spoken  to  her  before  she  left  the  meeting,  but  he 
did  not  seem  to  notice  her  presence  there.  She  was  sure 
lie  would  call  in  the  morning — but  dinner  was  on  the 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  405 

table,  and  he  had  not  come.  That  letter  of  hers  must 
have  prevented ;  but  surely  there  was  not  in  it  any 
harsh  expression,  any  single  word  of  unkindness.  Did 
not  her  heart  ache  with  the  very  intensity  of  her  love, 
while  she  was  writing  it  ?  And  now  she  tried  to  recall 
it,  sentence  by  sentence,  and  word  by  word,  to  see  if 
there  was  any  thing  there  which  she  should  not  have 
said. 

The  afternoon  wore  slowly  away.  She  sat  at  the  win 
dow  where  she  could  see  the  door  of  his  office,  but  it  was 
never  opened.  She  listened  to  every  foot  fall  on  the 
pavement,  but  she  heard  not  his  familiar  step.  Once 
the  latch  of  the  front  door  was  moved,  and  she  sprang 
from  her  seat,  and  felt  the  blood  crimson  all  her  face 
and  neck ;  but  she  sat  down  in  a  moment,  for  she  knew 
it  was  her  brother  Edwin.  Mr.  Courtney  called  after 
supper.  Mr.  Percy  had  not  come  yet ;  but  she  hoped 
to  meet  him  at  her  uncle's.  He  was  not  there — and  her 
spirit  retired  within  itself;  and  she  sat  as  mute,  and 
almost  as  unconscious  of  what  was  passing  around  her, 
as  a  marble  statue. 

When  Uncle  Jones  went  out,  it  was  to  see  Dr.  Wood 
ruff,  a  cousin  of  Mr.  Percy,  who  was  also  his  most  de 
voted  friend  and  confidant.  He  was  to  have  officiated 
as  the.bridegroom's  friend  on  the  expected  wedding-day, 
and  had  just  returned  from  Mr.  Percy's  mother's,  where 
he  had  spent  the  day  with  one  whose  earthly  career 
seemed  likely  soon  to  close.  He  had  come  in  to  break 
the  melancholy  tidings  as  best  he  could  to  Theodosia. 

The  facts,  as  he  related  them  to  Professor  Jones,  were 
briefly  these :  The  servant  who  waifed  on  Mr.  Percy's 
office  had  gone  there  in  the  morning,  and  had  found  the 
young  man  lying  upon  his  face  on  the  floor,  with  Theo- 
dosia's  letter  in  his  hand.  When  the  servant  entered  he 
seemed  to  be  asleep.  He  aroused  him,  and  raised  him 


THEOD08IA   ERNEST. 

up  ;  but  his  looks  were  so  wild,  and  his  face  was  so  pale* 
and  his  words  (rather  muttered  than  spoken)  so  strange 
and  unnatural,  that  he  placed  him  on  the  bed  and  ran 
for  his  cousin,  the  doctor. 

When  Doctor  Woodruff  came,  and  read  the  letter,  he 
understood  how  it  had  been.  Mr.  Percy,  from  the  time 
he  wrote  and  sent  that  distressing  letter  to  Theodosia, 
in  the  previous  week,  had  been  in  a  state  of  most  intense 
mental  excitement.  Much  of  the  time  he  had  been  sxif- 
fering  extreme  agony  of  mind.  His  physical  powers 
had  become  greatly  exhausted,  and  his  nervous  system 
debilitated  and  excitable.  He  had  gone  from  the  meeting 
in  the  court-house  (where  he  had  so  unexpectedly  had 
an  opportunity  to  ask  for  Christian  baptism)  to  his 
office.  There  he  found  Theodosia's  letter.  He  had 
never  till  then  conceived  that  his  letter  would  have 
occasioned  such  distress  to  her,  or  that  it  would  have 
led  her  to  such  a  determination.  Yet  if  he  had  been 
entirely  self-collected,  and  his  mind  had  not  been  already 
exhausted  by  long  continued  over-excitement,  the  shock 
which  the  reading  of  her  reply  now  gave  him,  would 
have  been  speedily  followed  by  calmer  thoughts,  and  an 
instant  determination  to  see  her  at  once,  confess  his 
fault,  ask  her  forgiveness,  and  set  himself  right  in  her 
heart.  But  exhausted  in  body  and  excited  in  mind  as 
he  was,  the  revulsion  of  feeling  was  too  great  to  be  en 
dured.  H£  read  on  till  he  came  to  where  she  said, 
"  When  you  return,  I  pray  you  to  consider  me  but  as 
one  dead.  It  will  be  better  for  us  both."  The  paper 
seemed  to  grow  black  before  his  eyes.  The  room  was 
suddenly  darkened.  He  felt  a  strange,  dreamy  calmness 
creep  over  his  brain.  He  sunk  down  out  of  his  chair  in 
a  deep  swoon,  or  fainting  fit,  upon  the  floor.  He  became 
conscious  after  a  time,  but  had  not  strength  to  rise ; 
and  subsided  again  into  a  strange,  unquiet  sleep,  mixed 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  407 

with  half-waking  dreams,  in  which  he  saw  a  beauteous 
form,  more  like  an  angel  than  a  being  of  the  earth,  who 
came  and  raised  him  up,  and  looked  into  his  eyes  so 
sadly,  so  reproachfully,  and  yet  so  tenderly,  that  he 
struggled  to  tell  her  how  his  heart  bled  at  the  remem 
brance  of  the  act  which  caused  her  so  much  sorrow — but 
he  could  not  speak.  He  strove  to  raise  his  hand  and 
make  some  sign  to  assure  her  that  he  loved  her  better 
for  her  firm  adherence  to  the  truth,  but  the  muscles 
would  not  obey  the  will.  He  could  not  move — he  could 
not  speak — and  she  was  gone.  Oh,  how  deep  and  how 
long  was  the  darkness  of  that  night !  She  was  gone ! 
He  felt  that  she  was  lost  to  him  forever.  The  very  light 
of  his  life  was  darkness  now — and  yet  he  waited  and 
watched  for  her  return.  Could  she  leave  him  thus  ? 
Would  she  not  love  him  still  ?  Hark  I  he  hears  her 
footstep.  The  door  opens.  Some  one  touches  him.  He 
starts  from  his  slumber  to  greet  her  with  some  word  of 
love,  but  he  sees  only  his  servant,  who  is  trying  to  re 
move  him  from  the  floor  to  the  bed.  He  stares  at  him 
with  the  strange  gaze  of  incipient  madness,  and  bids  him 
leave  him  to  rest  in  peace.  The  doctor  saw  at  once  that 
a  long  and  fearful  brain  fever  was  the  best  that  he  could 
hope  for ;  and  while  his  strength  was  yet  comparatively 
undiminished,  resolved  to  remove  him  to  his  mother's 
house,  some  two  miles  in  the  country.  This  clone,  he 
prepared  such  remedies  as  his  medical  skill  suggested, 
sat  down,  and  watched  beside  his  bed  till  he  was  satis 
fied  that  there  was  no  immediate  danger ;  and  then,  at 
his  mother's  request,  came  in  to  explain  to  Theodosia 
the  reason  why  he  had  not  called  on  her.  He  had 
thought  best  to  explain,  as  we  have  seen,  to  Uncle  Jones, 
and  leave  him  to  make  it  known  to  his  niece. 

The  Professor  had  been  so  much  occupied  with  this 
matter,  that  he  scarcely  heard  the  discussion  which  was 


408  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

going  on  in  his  presence.  He  was  glad  when  a  pause  ifl 
the  conversation  showed  that  the  parties  engaged  had, 
for  the  present,  at  least,  exhausted  their  ammunition, 
and  were  prepared  for  a  temporary  truce,  if  not  for  a 
permanent  peace.  He  turned  their  attention  to  some 
other  subject,  and  in  a  few  minutes  the  Reverend  Doctor 
took  his  leave. 

Uncle  Jones  walked  home  with  Theodosia.  They 
walked  slowly  ;  and  when  Mrs.  Ernest  and  Mr.  Court 
ney  had  gotten  some  way  before  them,  he  broke  the 
silence  by  reminding  her  that  she  had  not  spoken  a  word 
all  through  the  evening ;  "and,"  said  he,  "  I  will  tell  you 
why.  You  were  distressed  that  Mr.  Percy  had  not 
called  to  see  you  since  his  return,  and  wondering  what 
could  be  the  cause.  Will  it  relieve  your  mind  to  tell 
you  that  he  is  sick  ?" 

"  I  will  not  deny  to  you,  uncle,  that  such  was  the 
subject  of  my  thoughts.  I  hope  he  is  not  seriously 
unwell." 

"  The  doctor  does  not  think  him  in  any  immediate 
danger,  but  fears  it  will  be  long  before  he  can  resume 
his  business." 

"  Why,  uncle,  what  can  be  the  matter  ?  I  am  sure  I 
never  saw  him  look  better  than  he  did  last  night.  Did 
you  not  notice  the  brightness  of  his  eye,  and  the  fresh 
ness  of  his  cheek,  and  how  rich  and  mellow  was  his 
voice  while  he  was  telling  what  God  so  wonderfully  had 
done  for  his  soul  ?" 

"  I  was  myself  too  much  engaged  to  observe  him 
closely,  but  I  can  well  imagine  that  the  unnatural  flush 
ing  of  his  cheek,  and  the  unusual  brilliancy  of  his  eye, 
were  but  the  tokens  of  that  intense  mental  excitement 
which  preceded,  if  it  did  not  produce,  the  fever  from 
which  he  is  suffering  now." 

They  had   reached  the   cottage  door.     Uncle  Jones 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  409 

thought  best  not  to  go  into  any  further  particulars,  and 
returned  to  his  home. 

That  night,  if  one  had  passed  by  the  window  of  Theo- 
dosia's  room,  he  might  have  heard  many  a  sob,  mingled 
with  half-uttered  prayers.  Had  she  known  all  the  truth, 
her  sobs  might  have  been  louder ;  but  her  prayers  could 
hardly  have  been  more  earnest. 

The  messenger  who  went  next  day  to  inquire,  re 
turned  to  say  that  Mr.  Percy  was  no  better ;  and  so  it 
was  the  next  day — and  the  next.  Doctor  Woodruff  had 
called  in  a  brother  practitioner,  but  did  not  reveal  to 
him,  nor  even  to  Mr.  Percy's  mother,  the  whole  secret 
of  his  attack.  The  letter  which  he  found  in  his  hand, 
he  had  considerately  laid  aside,  to  be  returned  to  him 
should  he  recover.  Its  existence  was  a  professional 
secret.  He  attributed  his  illness  to  the  long  and  tire 
some  journey  on  horseback  through  the  sun,  and  to  such 
excitement  of  mind  as  he  had  himself  publicly  described 
before  his  strange  attack. 

On  Saturday  evening  Mrs.  Ernest  received  a  line  from 
Mrs.  Percy,  saying  that  her  son  was  growing  daily  worse 
and  worse  ;  and,  strange  to  tell,  he  had  in  his  delirium 
conceived  a  singular  fancy  that  Theodosia  had  ceased 
to  love  him,  and  had  even  formally  discarded  him.  This 
idea,  she  said,  was  uppermost  in  all  the  wanderings  of 
his  mind,  and  evidently  was  exerting  a  great  influence 
upon  the  progress  of  his  disease ;  and  Doctor  Woodruff 
had  suggested  that  if  Theodosia  could  herself  assure 
him  of  her  continued  affection,  it  might  have  a  soothing, 
and  perhaps  a  healing  influence. 

Mrs.  Ernest  handed  the  note  to  her  daughter,  with 
the  remark,  that  in  consideration  of  their  well-known 
betrothal,  there  could  be  no  impropriety  in  granting 
Mrs.  Percy's  request. 

"  We  will  go  to  him  at  once,  dear  mother,"  said  Theo- 
35 


410  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

dosia,  when  she  had  read  the  note,  with  eyes  full  of  tears 
"  Even  a  brief  delay  may  be  of  fatal  consequence." 

When  they  reached  Mrs.  Percy's  house,  he  had  fallen 
into  an  unquiet  slumber,  from  which  they  did  not  seek 
to  awaken  him.  They  sat  down  in  the  room,  and  con 
versed  in  a  low  tone  about  the  nature  of  his  disease, 
and  other  matters  which  the  circumstances  suggested. 
Theodosia  took  but  little  part  in  this  conversation,  ex 
cept  as  a  most  eager  listener.  She  sat  down  near  the  head 
of  the  low  couch  on  which  he  lay,  but  presently  arose,  and, 
under  pretence  of  shading  the  patient's  eyes,  adjusted 
the  candle  so  that  it  should  not  shine  upon  her  own. 
Oh,  who  can  tell  the  thoughts  that  then  were  thronging 
in  her  maiden  heart !  How  changed  he  was !  How 
pale — how  corpse-like  was  his  cheek !  How  wasted  was 
the  thin,  emaciated  hand,  which  lay  outside  the  cover  ! 
How  parched  and  feverish  the  lips  !  How  sunken  the 
eyes !  How  would  they  look  when  he  should  open  them  ? 
Would  he  know  her  ?  Would  he  speak  to  her  ?  What 
if  he  now  should  open  his  eyes  and  see  me  here  ? — and 
she  almost  unconsciously  moved  her  chair  back  out  of 
his  range  of  vision  as  she  thought  of  it.  His  lips  moved : 
she  reached  the  spoon  in  the  tumbler  of  water  upon  the 
little  table,  and  moistened  them.  He  opened  his  eyes 
wide  ;  he  looked  her  steadily  in  the  face  ;  he  glanced  at 
her  white  dress ;  he  looked  in  her  face  again.  She 
fancied  that  the  expression  of  wonder  on  his  face  gave 
place  to  a  scarcely  perceptible  smile.  But  he  did  not 
speak  ;  he  did  not  make  any  sign  of  recognition.  She 
sat  down  again  and  wept. 

"  You  must  need  rest,  Mrs.  Percy.  You  may  go  and 
sleep,  and  leave  the  care  of  him  to  us  to-night,"  said 
Mrs.  Ernest.  "  We  will  watch  him  as  tenderly  as  you 
could  do  yourself." 

Mrs.  Percy  laid  down,  and  Theodosia  withdrew  to  some 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  413 

distance  from  the  couch,  and  sat  where  she  could  see 
every  change  that  passed  upon  his  face.  The  love  which 
she  had  for  a  time  endeavored  to  eradicate  from  out  her 
mind,  had  only,  like  the  lofty  oak  when  torn  and  wrenched 
by  the  mighty  storm,  extended  its  roots  more  widely 
and  deepty,  and  clasped  them  more  firmly  round  her 
heart ;  and  now,  when  the  cause  which  led  her  to  cast  it 
off  had  Ibeen  removed,  she  clung  more  ardently  and  de 
votedly  than  ever  to  the  hope  that  he  would  yet  be  hers. 
Again  and  again  during  that  long  night,  when  she  has 
tened  to  do  some  little  act  of  kindness,  did  he  open  his 
eyes  and  look  at  her  with  a  kind  of  wondering  tender 
ness  in  his  gaze  ;  but  yet  he  did  not  speak,  nor  was  she 
sure  that  he  recognized  her  at  all. 

He  slept  more  quietly  that  night  than  he  had  yet  done, 
and  when  the  doctor  came  next  day,  he  whispered  in  his 
ear  that  a  beautiful  vision  had  come  to  him  in  his  dreams 
and  looked  at  him  so  lovingly,  that  he  was  ready  to 
speak,  and  ask  it  whence  it  came,  but  feared  his  voice 
might  break  the  charm,  and  it  would  vanish  from  his 
sight. 

"  You  must  stay  with  us,  my  child,"  said  Mrs.  Percy, 
"  till  my  son  gets  better.  He  talked  of  you  continually 
until  you  came,  but  now  it  seems  as  though  your  very 
presence  in  the  house  exerts  a  sort  of  magic  influence 
over  him,  for  he  is  quiet,  and  does  not  so  much  as  lisp 
your  name.  The  doctor  says  if  you  could  but  become 
his  nurse,  he  may  yet  recover.  Will  you  not,  my 
daughter?" 

"  If  my  mother  thinks  there  would  be  no  impropriety 
in  my  doing  so." 

"  Certainly,  Theodosia,  I  think  you  ought  to  return 
and  assist  Mrs.  Percy  in  every  way  you  can.  But 
your  uncle  and  I  are  going  to  be  baptized  to-day, 


411  THEOD08IA    ERNEST. 

and  you  will  not  be  willing  to  be  absent  from  the  meet 
ing." 

This  conversation  took  place  in  the  hall,  from  which 
there  was  an  open  door  leading  to  the  patient's  room. 
He  heard  Theodosia's  voice ;  he  thought  he  heard  her 
name.  He  made  some  sound,  which  recalled  his  mother 
to  his  side,  and  looking  in  her  face  with  a  more  natural 
expression  than  he  had  since  his  attack,  he  said  : 

"  Mother,  I  thought  I  saw  her  spirit  here  last  night, 
and  just  now  I  am  sure  I  heard  her  voice,  and  thought 
that  some  one  called  her  name.  Tell  me  if  she  is  here." 

"  Would  you  like  to  see  her,  my  son  ?" 

"  Oh,  yes;  I  want  to  ask  her  to  forgive  me  before  I 
die." 

"  You  do  not  think  you  are  going  to  die,  my  child !" 

"  I  have  strange  feelings,  mother.  I  do  not  know  what 
death  is,  or  how  he  comes ;  but  I  am  sure  I  have  been 
very  near  the  world  of  spirits." 

"  Do  you  feel  any  alarm  at  the  prospect  of  death  ?" 

"  My  mind  is  very  weak,  mother.  I  scarcely  feel 
or  think  at  all.  I  have  a  blessed  Saviour:  I  remem 
ber  that ;  and  I  will  trust  him,  even  though  I  die. 
But  tell  me — did  I  hear  her  voice,  or  was  it  but  a 
dream  ?" 

"  Try  to  compose  yourself,  my  child.  The  doctor 
says  that  you  must  sleep  awhile  this  morning.  If  you 
wish  to  see  Miss  Ernest,  I  will  send  for  her." 

"  Do  you  think  she  would  come  ?" 

"  I  know  she  would.  So  make  yourself  easy,  and  you 
shall  see  her  when  you  wake." 

On  returning  to  her  visitors,  Mrs.  Percy  related  this 
conversation,  and  insisted  that  Theodosia  must  remain 
to  be  there  when  he  awoke ;  and  as  the  young  lady  did 
not  object,  Mrs.  Ernest  went  home  without  her.  She 
laid  down  on  her  arrival,  and  took  a  short  nap,  and  then 


TENTH  NIGHT'S  STUDY.  415 

taking  Edwin  by  the  hand,  joined  Unele  and  Aunt 
Jones  on  their  way  to  the  Baptist  meeting. 

When  the  usual  invitation  was  given  to  those  who 
desired  membership  with  the  church  to  eome  forward 
and  make  their  profession,  Uncle  Jones  was  surprised 
and  delighted  to  see  both  his  wife  and  his  sister  go  up 
and  ask  admittance  into  the  church  of  God.  Neither 
of  them  had  said  a  word  to  him  upon  the  subject,  for 
though  both  had  yielded  to  their  convictions  of  the 
truth,  that  immersion  is  the  only  baptism,  some  days 
before,  and  both  had  been  convinced  that  believers  are 
the  only  Scriptural  subjects  of  baptism,  they  could 
neither  of  them  overcome  their  repulsion  to  the  practice 
of  close  communion,  or  consent  to  sever  their  connec 
tions  with  those  to  whom  they  had  such  strong  attach 
ments,  until  the  explanations  of  Mr.  Courtney  in  their 
last  conversation  put  it  beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  not  only  commanded  believers,  and 
them  only,  to  be  immersed,  but  that  he  had  also  for 
bidden  all  who  had  not  believed  and  been  immersed  to 
approach  his  table,  and  required  of  those  who  had  in 
this  way  become,  according  to  his  order,  the  members 
of  his  church,  that  they  should  carefully  guard  the 
purity  and  the  perpetuity  of  his  ordinances,  by  permit 
ting  no  one  to  partake  with  them  in  the  peculiar  privi 
leges  of  church  members  who  had  not,  like  themselves, 
been  made  members  according  to  the  same  Gospel 
order.  This  difficulty  removed,  they  were  now  ready  to 
be  baptized. 

We  need  not  detain  you  any  longer,  gentle  reader,  by 
describing  to  you  the  baptism  of  these  three,  who,  with 
several  others,  followed  the  example  of  their  Saviour,  by 
going  down  into  the  water,  and  were  buried  with  him  in 
the  liquid  grave.  Nor  can  we  now  continue  the  history 
in  which  you  have  come,  we  trust,  to  feel  so  great  an  in- 


416  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

tcrest  that  you  would  gladly  see  the  end.  We  have 
finished  our  ten  nights'  study  of  Scripture  baptism.  We 
have  examined  it  in  regard  to  its  mode,  its  subjects,  and 
its  results.  We  have  endeavored  to  do  it  plainly  and 
candidly,  but  if  we  know  our  own  hearts,  we  have  tried 
to  do  it  kindly — and  in  the  spirit  of  that  "  charity" 
which  "  rejoices  in  the  truth." 

We  are  grieved  to  leave  our  darling  Theodosia  in 
such  distress.  But  she  must  remain  a  little  while  in  the 
valley  of  tears,  until,  by  her  own  sorrows,  she  has  been 
taught  how  to  sympathize  with  the  sorrowful.  He  was 
the  wisest  man  of  earth  who  said,  "  By  the  sadness  of 
the  countenance  the  heart  is  made  better."  She  needs 
the  discipline  of  grief  to  fit  her  for  the  life  of  eminent 
usefulness  which  lies  before  her — and  the  history  of 
which  will  soon  be  given  in  another  volume. 


A  DREAM, 


IN 


REVIEW  OF  N,  L,  RICE'S 


NOTICE   OP   THE 


THEODOSIA  ERNEST 


FIRST    SERIES. 


BY  THE  AUTHOR  OF  THEODOSIA. 


PREFACE. 


THE  only  attempted  review  or  extended  unfavor 
able  notice  of  the  first  volume  of  Theodosia  Ernest, 
appeared  in  the  St.  Louis  Presbyterian,  from  the  pen 
of  its  Editor,  N.  L.  Eice,  D.D.  That  notice  is  here 
given,  and  a  review  of  Mr.  E.'s  singular  statements 
reviewed  in  a  dream — and  also  the  natural  effect  of 
such  a  treatment  of  the  best  arguments  ever  produced 
by  Presbyterians  or  Pedobaptists — the  conversion  of 
Pastor  Johnson.  We  regard  this  review,  in  connec 
tion  with  Mr.  Eice's  notice,  as  the  most  powerful 
argument  in  favor  of  Baptist  positions. 

J.  E.  GRAVES. 

Nashville,  1857. 


NOTICE   OF  THEODOSIA. 

BY    N.    L.    EICE. 
AS   IT    APPEARED    IN   THE    ST.  LOUIS    PRESBYTERIAN. 

)F  perseverance  and  ingenuity  were  evidences  of 
religious  truth,  there  could  no  longer  be  a  doubt 
that  immersion  is  the  only  valid  baptism.  Long 
and  earnestly  have  the  advocates  of  this  doctrine 
labored  to  sustain  its  claims.  The  pulpit,  the 
newspaper,  the  tract,  the  book,  learned  argument, 
and  assertion,  and  ridicule,  have  all  been  laid  under 
requisition.  Then  the  whole  Bible  must  be  translated 
anew  to  make  it  sustain  the  Baptist  sense.  And  now 
we  have  before  us,  by  the  kindness  of  a  friend,  a  Baptist 
novel,  the  title  of  which  is  "Theodosia  Ernest,  or  the 
Heroine  of  Faith."  The  author  has  modestly  concealed 
his  name,  but  the  work  is  published  by  Graves,  Marks 
&  Kuthland,  Nashville,  Tennessee.  The  book  is  really 
instructive  and  amusing.  We  purpose  briefly  to  notice 
a  few  of  its  peculiarities. 

It  displays  throughout  a  consciousness  of  the  weak 
ness  of  the  doctrine  it  is  intended  to  advocate.  1st. 
The  title  betrays  this  consciousness — "  The  Heroine  of 
Faith."  There  is  in  every  Christian's  heart  a  strong 
sympathy  with  the  struggles  and  conflicts  of  a  genuine 
faith,  rising  above  the  allurements  and  persecutions  of 
a  wicked  world.  The  author  has  thought  it  necessaiy 
to  take  advantage  of  this  noble  sympathy.  If  he  had 
adopted  the  more  truthful  title — "  The  Heroine  of  Im 
mersion" — the  book  would  have  fallen  still-born  from 

(419) 


420  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

the  press.  There  is  little  that  is  either  noble  or  roman 
tic  in  the  zeal  of  a  professing  Christian,  young  or  old, 
for  a  narrow  sectarian  dogma.  The  author  judged, 
merely,  that  the  cause  of  immersion  needs  the  advan 
tage  of  a  title  far  nobler  than  itself. 

The  same  conscious  weakness  shows  itself  in  the  choice 
of  a  heroine  instead  of  a  hero,  and  of  a  heroine  who  is 
a  highly  cultivated,  sensitive  young  lady  of  eighteen. 
Who  can  help  strongly  sympathizing  with  such  a  young 
lady,  devotedly  pious,  evidently  conscientious,  willing 
to  sacrifice  every  thing  for  the  truth,  conducting  an 
argument  against  two  or  three  men  much  older  than 
herself?  We  forget  the  cause  and  sympathize  with  the 
girl.  We  put  double  weight  to  her  arguments,  and  feel 
gratified  at  the  perplexities  into  which  her  antagonists 
are  thrown.  The  author  of  the  novel  judged  rightly 
that  the  cause  of  immersion  and  anti-pedobaptism 
claims  all  this  sympathy  and  more.  If  he  had  been  a 
hero,  instead  of  a  youthful  heroine,  his  hearers  would 
have  weighed  his  arguments,  instead  of  being  carried 
away  with  sympathy. 

The  cause  needed  even  stronger  sympathy;  and, 
therefore,  Miss  Theodosia  Ernest  is  brought  in  conflict 
with  the  man  to  whom  she  was  engaged  to  be  married — 
a  cold-hearted,  formal  Presbyterian  lover — whom  she 
loves  most  devotedly.  He  opposes  her  joining  "  the 
contemptible  sect  of  Baptists" — (we  naturally  sympa 
thize  with  a  person  opposed).  She,  poor  girl,  is  thrown 
into  a  paroxysm  of  grief,  sighs,  weeps,  and  prays,  and 
resolves  to  break  off  the  engagement,  just  for  the  pure 
love  of  immersion !  The  reader  feels  his  eyes  filling  with 
tears  of  sympathy  for  the  dear  distressed  creature  who 
had  also  her  mother  in  opposition,  and  is  almost  ready 
to  be  immersed  himself  just  to  comfort  her.  Who 
would  have  thought  that  a  Baptist  knew  so  well  how 


NOTICE   OP   THKODOSIA.  421 

much  it  was  necessary  to  excite  the  sympathies  of  his 
readers  to  prevent  them  seeing  the  flimsiness  of  his 
arguments  ? 

The  necessities  of  immersion  were  even  greater. 
Although  Miss  Theodosia  is  singularly  furnished  with 
Baptist  arguments,  for  one  who  has  just  reason  to  doubt 
the  validity  of  her  baptism,  Professor  Courtney,  an  ac 
complished  scholar,  is  called  to  aid  her.  He,  having 
been  a  Presbyterian,  and  having  examined  the  whole  sub 
ject,  is  perfectly  at  home  in  the  discussion.  He  under 
stands  Greek,  and  he  can  read  all  the  learned  authors 
on  the  subject.  On  the  other  side  we  have,  first,  Mr. 
Percy,  the  gentleman  engaged  to  Miss  Theodosia,  who 
is  represented  as  wholly  ignorant  of  the  subject ;  Rev. 
Mr.  Johnson,  the  young  lady's  pastor,  who  is  made  to 
talk  like  an  ignoramus  and  a  simpleton  ;  and  Professor 
Jones,  the  heroine's  uncle,  who  had  confessedly  never 
examined  the  subject,  and  scarcely  had  sense  enough  to 
keep  him  out  of  the  fire.  With  such  combatants  on  each 
side,  immersion  may  lift  its  head  in  bold  defiance.  We 
cannot  help  admiring  the  author's  clear  perception  of 
the  necessities  of  his  cause.  It  was  exceedingly  proper 
that  he  should  select,  as  the  advocates  of  Pedobaptism, 
such  persons  as  Mr.  Percy,  who  "had  never  had  a 
serious  thought  upon  the  question"  (p.  13)  ;  Mr.  John 
son,  who  said,  "  I  have  never  studied  these  controversies 
much" ;  and  "  Uncle  Jones,"  who,  though  Professor  of 
Languages,  had  considered  it  the  duty  of  his  parents 
and  their  pastor  to  attend  to  his  baptism,  and  "had 
never  inquired  whether  they  did  it  illy  or  well"  (p.  121). 
It  is  precisely  over  such  persons,  as  the  author  rightly 
judged,  that  Baptist  controvertists  gain  the  victory. 
And  yet  we  cannot  but  wonder  that  he  would  so  publicly 
disgrace  his  cause  by  selecting  such  ignoramuses  as  the 
opponents  of  the  learned  Mr.  Courtney ! 
36 


422  THEODO6IA   ERNEST. 

The  respective  characters  being  thus  selected,  the  ad 
vocates  of  immersion  are,  of  course,  allowed  to  make 
bold  assertions  which  are  utterly  untrue,  and  to  keep 
out  of  view  the  merits  of  the  case,  whilst  their  ignorant 
and  soft-headed  opponents  gape  and  wonder.  Thus 
"the  heroine  of  faith"  decides,  as  by  intuition,  that 
baptism  is  an  act,  and  that  if  immersion  is  baptism, 
sprinkling  and  pouring  cannot  be.  Her  intellect  is  too 
lofty,  and  her  perception  too  clear,  to  hesitate  for  a 
moment  to  decide  against  forty-nine  fiftieths  of  the 
wisest  and  best  men  that  have  lived  both  in  ancient  and 
modern  times.  The  author  rightly  judged  that  this 
heroine  ought  to  be  very  self-conceited.  Mr.  Percy  is 
made  to  admit,  what  every  tolerable  scholar  knows  to 
be  untrue,  that  all  the  lexicons  sustain  the  immersion- 
ists.  It  suited  the  purpose  of  the  writer  to  keep  out  of 
view  the  declaration  of  the  learned  Baptist,  Carson,  that 
"  all  the  lexicons"  were  against  them.  "  Professor 
Jones,"  poor  simpleton,  is  made  to  express  the  opinion 
that  immersion  was  first  introduced  "  by  the  Mad  Men 
of  Munster  during  the  Reformation  of  Luther."  He 
cannot  tell,  poor  fellow,  where  he  got  the  idea ;  but 
"perhaps  he  got  something  of  it  from  reading  D'Au- 
bigne's  History  of  the  Reformation — perhaps  he  re 
ceived  it  by  hearing  something  of  the  kind  from  the 
pulpit."  And  the  accomplished  Baptist,  Mr.  Courtney, 
has  "  seen  and  heard  such  statements  many  times  from 
various  sources.  They  are  often  recorded  in  Presbyte 
rian  and  Methodist  newspapers"  (p.  160).  And  the 
learned  gentleman  gravely  goes  to  work  to  disprove 
this  statement,  which  was  never  made  by  any  tolerably 
informed  Presbyterian,  or  recorded  in  any  respectable 
Pedobaptist  paper.  The  book  abounds  with  such  vile 
misrepresentations. 

The  book  is  written  with  ingenuity — it  was  necessary 


NOTICE    OP    TIIEODOSIA.  423 

that  it  should  be.  It  keeps  out  of  view  the  facts  and 
arguments  on  which  Pedobaptists  rely,  or  caricatures 
them  to  make  them  appear  ridiculous.  It  puts  into 
their  mouths  arguments  they  never  use.  It  manufac 
tures  history  to  suit  the  occasion.  In  a  novel,  all  this 
can  be  done  in  such  a  way  that  the  uninformed  reader 
will  not  readily  detect  it.  We  are  gratified  at  observing 
how  distinctly  the  writer  shows,  first  and  last,  that  the 
cause  of  immersion  needs  very  peculiar  advantage  in 
order  to  sustain  its  claims. 

After  all,  since  he  was  advocating  a  fiction,  he  is 
probably  right  in  adopting  fiction  as  the  means  of  its 
defence.  The  only  way  to  find  so  ignorant  and  stupid 
Presbyterians  as  Percy,  Johnson,  and  Jones,  is  to  man 
ufacture  them  for  the  occasion  ;  and  nowhere,  but  in 
the  imagination  of  a  zealous  immersionist,  can  such 
Presbyterian  young  ladies  as  "  Theodosia  Ernest,  the 
Heroine  of  Faith,"  be  found.  The  author  could  not 
successfully  assail  real,  living  Presbyterians  ;  and,  there 
fore,  being  resolved  on  battle  and  a  victory,  he  manu 
factures  a  few  to  suit  him,  and  then  chooses  their 
weapons  for  them,  and  directs  them  how  to  use  them, 
so  they  will  be  sure  not  to  hurt  them.  Brave  man  !  Don 
Quixote  was  scarcely  his  equal. 

Verily,  the  cause  of  anti-Pedobaptism  seems  to  be 
"on  its  last  legs."  If  it  cannot  induce  the  Christian 
world  to  receive  an  immersionist  Bible,  and  if  novels 
will  not  sustain  it,  what  is  it  to  do  ? 


CHAPTER   I. 

A    DREAM. 

HAD  a  dream,  but  whether  it  was  all  a  dream,  let 
him  who  reads  it  judge. 

Methought  in  my  dream  that  I  was  in  Pastor 
Johnson's  study.  He  had  in  his  hand  the  Pres 
byterian  newspaper,  called  the  Presbyterian  of 
St.  Louis.  He  had  just  found  the  article  of  Doctor 
Rice  on  Theodosia.  His  little  gray  eyes  began  to  twinkle 
the  moment  they  caught  the  caption,  "A  BAPTIST  NOVEL," 
for,  since  his  troubles  with  the  young  lady  and  her  uncle, 
he  has  devoured  with  great  avidity  every  thing  which  he 
could  find  against  the  Baptists.  As  he  was  reading, 
however,  a  heavy  frown  began  to  gather  on  his  brow, 
his  lips  were  pressed  together  with  convulsive  energy, 
and  the  paper  shook  with  the  tremulous  excitement 
which  pervaded  his  whole  body.  He  continued  to  read, 
however,  until  he  had  finished  the  piece,  and  then,  as  if 
to  assure  himself  that  he  had  not  read  amiss,  he  began 
at  the  caption  and  read  it  every  word  again.  When  he 
had  done,  he  folded  the  paper  carefully,  put  it  into  the 
inside  pocket  of  his  coat,  looked  into  the  fire  for  several 
seconds,  then  nodded  his  head  three  times  very  signifi 
cantly,  not  straight  forward  with  the  chin  toward  his 
breast  bone,  but  diagonally,  with  the  chin  inclined  to 
ward  the  left  shoulder,  and  the  back  of  his  head  drawn 
toward  the  right. 

What  this  peculiar  pantomine  might  signify,  I  was,  in 
my  dream,  greatly  at  a  loss  to  determine,  until  he  had 

(427) 


428  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

gone  into  the  room  where  his  wife  was  engaged  in  her 
domestic  duties. 

"  Mrs.  Johnson,"  said  he,  "  I  desire  that  you  will  pack 
my  carpet-bag.  I  must  make  a  journey  to  St.  Louis, 
and  to  get  home  "before  the  Sabbath  must  start  this 
morning." 

"  Why,  my  dear,  what  in  the  world  is  the  matter?" 

"  I  want  to  go  and  see  Doctor  Rice,  madam ;  I  don't 
like  the  way  he  talks  about  me.  He  has  had  the  auda 
city  to  call  me  a  fool,  madam ;  nay,  more,  he  has  even 
declared  that  there  is  not  so  great  a  fool  in  our  whole 
denomination.  It  is  too  much,  madam,  for  human 
nature  to  endure.  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  go  and  talk  to 
him  as  a  Christian  brother ;  I  want  to  tell  him  to  his 
face  that  I  think  he  has  done  me  great  injustice,  and,  in 
short,  has  treated  me  very  badly." 

Mrs.  Johnson  seemed  instinctively  to  understand  that 
delay  or  remonstrance  was  o.ut  of  the  question.  She 
made  at  once  the  needful  arrangements,  and  her  husband 
was  gone. 

Then  I  saw,  in  my  dream,  that  he  entered  the  room 
where  the  Reverend  Doctor  was  engaged  in  writing. 

"  I  presume  this  is  the  Reverend  Doctor  Rice,"  said 
he.  "  My  name  is  Johnson,  sir ;  the  Reverend  Mr.  John 
son,  of  ,  I  felt  it  my  duty,  sir,  to  come  and  see  you 

about  your  paper  of  the  

"Ah,  I  am  glad  to  see  you,  Mr.  Johnson.  Take  a 
seat,  sir;  I  hope  you  have  had  a  pleasant  journey." 

"  Why,  yes,  sir,  reasonably  so ;  but  in  fact  I  have  a 
great  dislike  to  traveling,  and  nothing  would  have  in 
duced  me  to  take  the  journey  but  a  conviction  of  duty. 
I  felt  it  to  be  my  duty,  sir,  to  come  and  tell  you  that  I 
think  you  have  treated  me  very  badly,  sir.  And  let  me 
say,  sir,  that  you  have  done  more  to  destroy  my  confi 
dence  and  that  of  my  congregation,  in  the  truthfulness 


A    DREAM.  429 

of  our  positions  on  the  Baptismal  question,  than  all  the 
Baptist  arguments  I  have  ever  heard." 

"  Why,  my  dear  sir,  what  can  you  mean  ?" 

Mr.  Johnson  pulled  the  paper  before  referred  to  out 
of  his  pocket,  and  found  the  article  on  Theodosia. 

"  I  suppose,  sir,"  said  he,  holding  it  up  before  the 
Doctor,  "  you  will  not  deny  that  you  are  the  author  of 
that  ?» 

"  Certainly  not,"  replied  the  Doctor,  as  he  glanced 
rapidly  down  the  column  like  one  who  was  familiar 
with  the  words.  "  I  take  credit  to  myself,  sir,  as  being 
the  first,  and,  so  far  as  I  know,  the  only  person  who  has 
attempted  to  answer  that  peculiar  book." 

"I  have  no  objection, "replied  Mr.  Johnson,  "to  your 
answering  the  book.  In  fact,  no  one  could  rejoice  more 
than  I  to  see  it  rightly  answered,  but  I  want  you  to 
understand  that  you  have  done  me  and  those  who  stood 
with  me  in  that  discussion  very  great  injustice.  It  was 
unkind,  sir,  it  was  cruel  in  you  to  intimate  that  there 
was  not  in  all  the  Presbyterian  denomination  so  great  a 
fool  as  I,  just  because  I  had  never  carefully  examined 
the  subject  of  baptism  for  myself,  but  trusted  to  Doctor 
Dwight  and  Doctor  Miller,  and  our  other  Doctors  of 
Divinity  for  my  information  and  my  arguments.  I  have 
always  had  a  great  regard,  sir,  for  our  Doctors  of  Di 
vinity.  I  have  supposed  they  must  be  pious,  and 
learned,  and  truthful  men.  I  thought  I  could  rely  upon 
any  thing  I  had  learned  from  a  Presbyterian  Doctor 
of  Divinity ;  I  therefore  took  the  substance  of  their 
arguments,  not  venturing  to  employ  a  single  one  of 
my  own,  and  yet  for  doing  this  you  count  me  as  a  simple 
ton  and  called  me  a  fool." 

"  Ah,  my  dear  brother  Johnson,  you  must  excuse  me ; 
I  did  not  at  first  understand  precisely  who  you  were,  I 
begin  to  see  it  now.  Let  me  assure  you,  sir,  that  I 


430  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

heartily  sympathize  with  you  on  the  loss  of  so  lovely  a 
member  as  Miss  Theodosia,  and  so  influential  an  Elder 
as  her  Uncle  Jones.  I  can  easily  understand,  my  dear 
sir,  that  you  were  deeply  wounded  by  that  event,  and 
still  feel  a  little  sore  on  the  subject.  But  you  must  not 
fall  out  with  your  friends  on  that  account.  We  must 
DO  SOMETHING  to  break  the  force  of  the  arguments  pre 
sented  by  the  author  in  his  silly  narrative  of  that 
transaction.  We  must  either  meet  those  arguments 
with  sober  logic,  or  we  must  destroy  their  influence  by 
ridicule.  I  am  sure  when  you  have  come  to  look  at  the 
matter  calmly,  you  will  not  only  excuse  but  even 
approve  what  I  have  said.'' 

"  What,  sir !  excuse  and  approve  your  calling  me  a 
fool,  just  because  I  used  no  better  arguments  than  had 
been  furnished  me  by  our  greatest  Doctors  of  Di 
vinity  !  /" 

'•  Ah,  my  dear  brother,  I  see  that  you  do  not  yet 
quite  understand  me.  I  mean  to  say  that,  in  order  to 
destroy  the  influence  of  that  sill}'  narrative,  we  must 
either  fairly  meet  and  logically  confute  the  facts  and 
arguments  by  which  Miss  Theodosia  and  her  uncle 
were  convinced  that  we  are  wrong  and  the  Baptists  are 
right,  or  else  we  must  turn  attention  from  them  by 
calling  the  book  a  '  NOVEL,'  and  laughing  at  the  argu 
ments  as  though  they  were  not  worth  answering.  And 
now  let  me  say  to  you  in  confidence,  that  it  was  a  great 
deal  easier  to  insinuate  that  as  a  '  novel'  it  must  be  a 
work  unfit  for  the  pious  to  read,  and  ridicule  and  laugh 
at  the  book,  than  to  disprove  its  facts  or  answer  its 
arguments.  I  trust,  therefore,  you  will  not  take  it  too 
much  to  heart  if  you  come  in  for  your  share  of  the 
laugh,  since  you  can't  help  seeing  that  if  I  had  allowed 
your  arguments  and  those  of  your  friend,  Professor 
Jones,  to  be  the  best  we  have,  our  cause  is  at  once  and 


A    DREAM.  431 

forever  irretrievably  ruined  ;  but  by  adroitly  represent 
ing  these  as  perfect  nonsense  and  foolishness,  I  make 
the  impression  on  the  minds  of  my  readers  that  we  have 
some  others  of  most  tremendous  power,  which  could 
not  possibly  have  failed  to  convince  your  opponents  if 
you  had  only  kuovjn  them  and  brought  them  forward." 
"  But,  sir,"  replied  Mr.  Johnson,  "  I  am  sure  I  brought 
forward  the  very  best  that  I  could  find — I  took  those 
of  our  most  eminent  Doctors  of  Divinity,  living  and 
dead,  the  present  company  only  excepted.  I  would  like 
to  know,  sir,  if  any  doctor  in  our  church  ever  stood 
higher  than  Timothy  Dwight,  D.  D.,  and  Samuel  Miller, 
D.  D.,  one  the  President  of  Yale  College,  the  other  an 
honored  professor  for  many  years  in  our  leading  Theo 
logical  Seminary,  that  at  Princeton,  New  Jersey.  I 
thought,  sir,  I  was  safe  from  the  charge  of  folly  when  I 
followed  Dwight  and  Miller,  and  consequently  I  took  the 
same  ground  with  these  eminent  men  to  show  Miss  Theo- 
dosia  that  John  did  not  baptize  by  immersion,  but  that 
the  Lord  Jesus  must  have  been  sprinkled  on  the  bank 
of  the  river.  Just  turn  to  volume  four,  page  341),  of 
Dwight's  Divinity — 'It  is,'  says  he,  'incredible  that  the 
multitudes  which  John  baptized  in  the  u-ilderness  ivere 
immersed.  It  will  not  be  mistrusted  that  this  promiscu 
ous  assembly  were  immersed  naked.  To  have  immersed 
them  with  their  clothes  on  ivould  have  exposed  them  to 
certain  disease  and-  death.'  Xow,  I  did  not  care  to  state 
it  just  in  this  way  to  Miss  Theodosia,  so  I  said  that 
they  could  not  have  been  immersed  on  account  of  their 
great  numbers,  and  for  this  I  had  the  authority  of 
several  Doctors  of  Divinity.  Says  Doctor  Summers, 
page  82  of  his  work  on  Baptism:  'It  was  not  possible 
for  him  to  baptize  the  immense  multitudes  that  came  to 
his  baptism  by  immersing  them,'  and  gives  as  a  reason 
that  his  ministry  lasted  only  a  year  or  less,  and  in  that 


•;  '2  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

lime  '  he  baptized,  perhaps,  two  or  three  millions.'  •  He 
thinks,  as  I  did,  that  they  must  have  stood  in  rows  along 
the  bank,  while  the  Baptist  sprinkled  them  either 
with  or  without  hyssop,  he  don't  know  which.  So 
also  Doctor  Eagletou,  of  Tennessee,  gives  the  same 
explanation. 

"  The  great  Doctor  Rice,  I  know,  does  not  venture  to 
s&y,  like  Summers  and  Dwight,  that  it  was  '  impossible' 
and  'incredible,1  but  even  he,  in  his  work  on  Baptism, 
page  116,  founds  an  argument  on  the  assumption  that 
'it  was  not  very  probable.'  And  Doctor  Miller,  whom 
some  will  consider  a  greater  than  Rice,  expressly  says, 
'  There  is  no  evidence,  and  I  will  venture  to  say,  no 
probability,  that  John  ever  baptized  by  immersion.'  Then, 
when  I  wished  to  prove  that  the  Apostle  did  not  immerse 
any  more  than  John  had  done,  what  better  could  I  do 
than  follow  these  great  Doctors  ?  Doctor  Dwight  ex 
pressly  says,  volume  four,  page  349 :  'It  is  impossible 
that  those  whom  Peter  and  his  companions  baptized  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost  should  have  been  immersed,'  and 
gives  as  reasons,  first,  that  they  had  no  suitable  clothes ; 
second,  there  was  not  time  enough,  and  he  plainly  inti 
mates  that  there  was  not  water  enough. 

"  So  Doctor  Summers  says  it  was  impossible,  because 
there  were  no  places  suitable  for  immersion,  and  besides 
it  was  impossible  for  the  twelve  to  baptize  such  a  mul 
titude  in  the  six  or  eight  hours  that  remained  of  the 
day.  So  also  Doctor  Rice  himself,  page  120  of  his 
work  on  Baptism,  makes  in  substance  the  very  same 
argument.  '  Where,'  he  exultingly  asks,  '  did  the  Apos 
tles  find  sufficient  ivater  for  the  immersion  of  so  many  ?' 
And  again,  '  The  number — could  the  twelve  Apostles 
baptize  three  thousand  persons  in  that  day?'  And 
Doctor  Miller,  whom  some  will  think  a  greater  even 
than  Doctor  Rice,  declares,  after  dwelling  upon  these 


A   DREAM.  433 

difficulties  of  the  case,  '  The  man,  therefore,  who  can 
believe  that  the  three  thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost 
were  baptized  by  immersion,  must  have  great  faith  and 
a  wonderful  facility  of  '  accommodating  his  belief  to  his 
wishes.' 

"  On  these  two  points,  therefore,  you  see  I  had  the 
authority  of  our  most  learned  Doctors,  including  even 
Doctor  ST.  L.  Rice  himself,  and  yet  Doctor  Rice  calls  me 
a  fool  because  I  could  not  do  better  than  them  all." 

"  Oh,  no ;  excuse  me,  my  dear  brother  Johnson,  but 
these  were  not  the  points  to  which  I  particularly  referred. 
I  grant  you  had  the  substance  of  our  arguments  on  these 
points,  but  then  that  argument  of  yours  based  upon 
with  as  the  signification  of  the  Greek  preposition  '  en,' 
you  must  allow  that  it  was  rather  simple  in  you  to  rest 
so  much  upon  the  phrase  '  with  water.' " 

"  Not  at  all,  sir;  I  can  admit  no  such  thing.  The  truth 
is,  sir,  this  is  our  great  argument  to  the  minds  of  the 
unlearned.  It  has  more  plausibility  in  it  than  any  other 
that  I  have  ever  read.  And,  sir,  you  must  let  me  tell 
you  that  though  you  may  now  call  it  silly  and  rate  me 
as  a  fool  for  using  it,  I  did  it  on  the  authority  of  more 
than  one  of  our  Doctors  of  Divinity.  The  Rev.  Alex 
ander  Newton,  D.D.,  in  the  '  True  Baptist,'  makes  a  long 
and  carefully  elaborated  argument,  based  upon  this  ren 
dering  of  the  word.  Dr.  Summers,  page  100,  says  ex 
pressly  that  '  with '  is  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word 
'when  found  in  connection  with  baptism.'  And  even 
the  great  Doctor  Rice  himself,  in  his  debate  with  Camp 
bell,  page  191,  quoted  Bloomfield  to  show  that  it  was 
'  with  water'  and  not  in  water  that  '  en  hudati '  should 
be  rendered.  How  then  can  Doctor  Rice  call  me  a  fool 
for  using  his  own  argument,  and  that  of  other  doctors 
almost  equal  to  himself?" 

"  I  don't  deny  that  I  alluded  to  it,"  replied  the  doctor; 


434  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

"  but  I  know  too  well  its  fallacy  to  risk  our  cause  upon 
it  as  you  did.  But  it  was  not  for  this  so  much  as  for 
your  calling  attention  to  those  unguarded  admissions 
of  Barnes,  and  Chalmers,  and  McKnight,  that  I  thought, 
to  say  the  least,  you  were  somewhat  indiscreet." 

"  Why,  my  dear  sir,  were  not  these  all  Presbyterians  ? 
Were  they  not  all  DOCTORS  OF  DIVINITY  ?  Could  I  not 
venture  to  direct  an  inquiring  member  of  the  Presby 
terian  Church  to  our  own  Presbyterian  Doctors  of 
Divinity  for  information?  I  know  those  men  were 
counted  among  the  wisest  and  the  best  of  all  our  doctors  ; 
I  took  it  for  granted  that  they  had  studied  the  subject 
before  they  wrote  about  it ;  I  had,  I  am  sure,  no  suspicion 
that  they  would  mislead  those  who  trusted  to  their 
teaching." 

"  But  when  you  found  which  way  they  were  leading 
your  inquirers  why  did  you  not  contradict  and  oppose 
their  testimony  ?" 

"  I  did  do  ray  best,"  replied  Mr.  Johnson,  "  but  the 
truth  is  I  am  not,  like  you,  a  Doctor  of  Divinity,  and 
therefore  I  could  not  contradict  such  men  with  as  good 
a  face  as  you  can.  If  you  had  been  there  you  might 
have  said,  '  My  dear  young  friends,  it  is  true  that  these 
learned  men  and  eminent  masters  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church  do  teach  thus,  but  they  are  utterly  in  error. 
They  have  stated  what  is  entirely  devoid  of  truth ;  you 
may  take  my  word,  but  you  cannot  trust  to  theirs.'  But 
you,  no  more  than  I,  could  have  denied  that  Dr.  Barnes 
admits  baptize  in  Greek  to  be  the  same  as  tabal  in  He 
brew,  and  that  he  says  and  proves  that  it  in  the  Scrip 
tures  signifies  '  to  dip.1  You,  no  more  than  I,  could 
have  denied  that  Chalmers  and  McKnight  do  both  un 
questionably  give  immersion  as  the  meaning  of  the 
word,  and  both  agree  that  it  was  immersion  that  John 
and  the  apostles  employed.  That  is  too  plain  for  argu- 


A    DREAM 

ment.  But  then,  as  you  are  a  Doctor  of  Divinity,  as 
well  as  they,  and  have  been  Moderator  of  the  General 
Assembly  one  year,  as  McKnight  was  for  twenty,  you 
might  have  ventured  to  dispute  their  word — you  might 
havo  called  in  question  either  their  learning  or  their 
veracity,  for  if  they  told  what  is  not  true  it  must  have 
been  either  from  ignorance  or  falsehood ;  but  it  would 
not  have  done  for  a  plain  and  simple  pastor  like  myself 
to  put  my  word  against  that  of  any  one  of  these  great 
doctors,  much  less  against  all  three.  I  assure  you,  sir, 
that  you  Doctors  of  Divinity  have  a  great  advantage 
over  us  common  pastors  in  such  a  discussion  as  that. 
When  that  learned  Professor  of  Theology,  Moses  Stuart, 
says  that  all  critics  and  lexicographers  of  any  note  are 
agreed  that  immersion  is  the  common  and  primary 
meaning  of  the  word  baptism,  and  that  the  first  Chris 
tians  so  understood  it,  you  can  simply  say  it  is  no  such 
thing ;  but  people  would  expect  me  to  prove  it,  and  that 
very  plainly,  too,  before  they  would  believe  that  Stuart 
lied  about  it,  or  that  a  man  of  his  eminent  learning  could 
be  mistaken. 

"  When  the  learned  MARTIN  LUTHER  says  that  '  Bap 
tism  is  a  Greek  word,  and  signifies  immersion,'  and  that 
the  etymologj'  of  the  word  seems  to  demand  that  the 
person  baptized  '  should  be  wholly  immersed,  and  then 
immediately  drawn  out  of  the  water,'  as  he  does  in  his 
works,  vol.  1,  p.  336,  you  could  reply:  'Doctor  Martin 
Luther  must  be  egregiously  mistaken  about  this,  for  I, 
Doctor  N.  L.  Rice,  have  examined  into  the  matter,  and 
find  it  is  not  true.'  When  that  'godly,  learned  man, 
JOHN  CALVIN,'  in  his  Institutes,  b.  iv.,  s.  15,  says  that 
'  The  word  baptize  signifies  to  immerse,  and  it  is  certain 
that  immersion  was  the  practice  of  the  ancient  church,' 
you,  as  a  Doctor  of  Divinity,  can  say :  '  Doctor  John 
Calvin  was  mistaken — this  is  not  true.'  When  that 


438  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

very  learned  and  eminent  scholar,  CASAUBON,  says, 
'  The  manner  of  baptizing  was  to  PLUNGE  or  DIP  them 
into  the  water,  as  even  the  word  BAPTISM  plainly  enough 
shows,'  you  have  only  to  say :  '  Casaubon  was  either 
very  ignorant  of  the  matter,  or  else  he  lied,  for  I,  Doctor 
N.  L.  Rice,  have  found  it  was  not  so.' 

"When  the  learned  BISHOP  BOSSUET  declares  that 
'  Baptize  signifies  to  plunge,  as  is  admitted  by  all  the 
world  ;'  when  the  famous  critic  Venema  says  :  '  The 
word  baptizien,  to  baptize,  is  nowhere  used  in  the 
Scripture  for  sprinkling;'  when  the  great  scholar  says, 
in  commenting  on  Matt.  iii.  6  :  '  Baptism  consists  in  the 
immersion  of  the  whole  body  in  water' — you  can  simply 
reply  :  '  I  know  these  learned  foreigners  say  such  things, 
but  Doctor  N.  L.  Rice  knows  better.' 

"  When  such  a  man  as  DOCTOR  GEORGE  CAMPBELL,  of 
Scotland,  the  President  of  a  Presbyterian  College,  says 
that  '  the  word  BAPTIZIEN,  both  in  the  sacred  authors 
and  classical,  signifies  to  DIP,  to  PLUNGE,  to  IMMERSE, 
and  was  thus  rendered  by  Tertullian,  the  oldest  of  the 
Latin  fathers,'  that  '  it  is  ALWAYS  construed  suitably  to 
this  meaning,'  that  '  it  is  never  in  any  case,  sacred  or 
classical,  employed  in  the  sense  of  rain  or  sprinkle,' 
you  have  only  to  say,  that  '  Doctor  George  Campbell 
differs  on  these  points  from  Doctor  N.  L.  Rice.' 

"  When  a  learned  professor  of  Greek,  like  the  well- 
known  Charles  Anthon,  of  Columbian  College,  the 
author  of  some  of  our  most  valuable  classical  school 
books,  expressly  asserts  that  '  the  primary  meaning  of 
the  word  is  to  DIP  or  to  IMMERSE,  and  its  secondary 
meanings,  if  it  ever  had  any,  all  refer  in  some  way  or 
other  to  the  same  leading  idea,'  that  '  sprinkling  and 
pouring  are  entirely  out  of  the  question,'  you  have  only 
to  say :  '  Mr.  Anthon  is  only  a  learned  professor  of 
languages,  and  I,  a  DOCTOR  OP  DIVINITY,  take  it  upon 


A    DREAM.  439 

myself  to  assure  you  that  he  is  entirely  mistaken.  IT 
is  NOT  TRUE  ;  and  whether  Professor  Anthon  is  igno 
rant  or  false,  the  world  may  judge.' 

"  Now  if  I,  a  simple,  untitled  pastor,  should  talk  so, 
they  would  not  believe  me.  I  tried  it,  sir.  I  asserted 
roundly,  just  as  Doctor  Miller  had  done.  I  intended  to 
use  his  very  words:  '  Now  we  contend  that  this  word 
does  not  necessarily,  or  even  commonly,  signify  to  im 
merse,  but  also  implies  to  wash,  to  sprinkle,  to  pour  on 
water,  and  to  tinge  or  dye  with  any  liquid,  and  there 
fore  accords  very  well  with  the  mode  of  baptism  by 
sprinkling  or  affusion.'  '  I  can  assure  yon,'  he  says  in 
another  place,  '  that  the  word  we  render  baptize  does 
legitimately  signify  the  application  of  water  in  any  way 
as  well  as  by  immersion.'  Now  I  could  make  assertions 
as  confidently  as  even  Doctor  Rice  himself,  but  I  found 
that  I  was  expected  to  prove  them,  and  that  from  the 
Scriptures,  and  in  such  a  way  that  the  demonstration 
should  be  plain  to  the  common  sense  of  an  earnest  and 
shrewd,  quick-witted  girl.  I  assure  you  I  had  rather 
have  tried  to  satisfy  a  dozen  Doctors  of  Divinity." 

"  But  why  did  you  not  go  to  the  Lexicons,  as  I  did  in 
my  Lexington  debate  ?  Why  did  you  permit  that  young 
lawyer  to  wrest  this  weapon  out  of  your  hands  at  the 
very  beginning?  Mr.  Campbell  began  to  quote  the 
Lexicons  on  me,  but  I  showed  that  this  was  a  game  at 
which  two  could  play." 

"And  yet  I  am  sure,  sir,  Miss  Theodosia  would  have 
said  that  you  lost  the  game,  however  well  you  played. 
The  truth  is,  Doctor  Albert  Barnes,  by  pointing  to  the 
places  in  the  Old  Testament  where  they  could  find  the 
meaning  of  the  word  as  it  was  used  among  the  Jews, 
had  taken  away  the  necessity  for  any  reference  to  Lex 
icons,  unless  it  were  to  prove  that  Barnes  was  a  false 
interpreter,  and  this  I  did  not  like  to  do.  But  what 


THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

could  the  Lexicons  have  availed  for  my  purpose,  even 
as  quoted  by  yourself?  You  appealed  to  eleven  of 
them,  and  I  suppose  you  gave  the  most  favorable  defini 
tions  you  could  extract.  Now,  you  will  remember  that 
neither  Miss  Ernest  nor  Mr.  Percy  had  taken  any  such 
ground  as  Mr.  Carson  had  done,  or  as  Mr.  Campbell  did 
in  your  debate.  No  one  in  our  company  insisted  that 
immerse  was  the  only  and  necessary  meaning  of  the 
word,  but  only  that  it  was  the  common  and  most  fre 
quent  meaning,  in  connection  with  which  it  was  most 
likely  to  be  employed,  and  which  it  must  therefore 
(according  to  the  ordinary  rules  of  interpretation)  be 
understood,  unless  the  context  required  some  other. 
Now  you  know,  as  well  as  I,  that  the  rule  of  the  Lexi 
cons  is  to  give  the  common,  every-day  meaning,  as  the 
primary  or  first  definition.  And  yet,  when  you  at 
tempted  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptizo 
by  the  Lexicons,  what  did  they  testify  ? 

"Scapula,  according  to  your  own  rendering,  gives 
baptizo,  to  dip  or  immerse  ;  also  to  dye,  as  we  immerse 
things  for  the  purpose  of  coloring  or  washing  them ; 
also  to  plunge,  submerge,  to  cover  with  water,  etc. 

"Hedericus  gives  to  dip,  immerse,  to  cover  with  water. 

"Stephanus. — To  dip,  to  immerse,  as  we  immerse 
things  for  the  purpose  of  coloring  or  washing ;  to 
merge,  submerge,  to  cover  with  water. 

"Schleusner. — To  plunge,  to  immerse. 

"Parkhurst. — To  immerse  in,  or  wash  with  water. 

"Robinson. — To  immerse,  to  sink. 

"  Schrivellius. — To  baptize,  to  immerse. 

"Groves. — To  dip,  immerse,  immerge,  plunge. 

"Bretschneider. — Properly  often  to  dip. 

"Suidas. — To  sink,  to  plunge,  to  immerse. 

"  Ware. — To  wash,  perform  ablution,  cleanse  ;  sec 
ondly,  to  immerse. 


A    PKEAM.  441 

x 

"Greenfield. — To  immerse,  immerge,  submerge,  sink. 

"  Now,  out  of  all  the  eleven,  you  could  find  but  one, 
and  that  Unknown  to  fame,  which  does  not  give  dip  or 
its  equivalent  as  its  first  and  common  meaning.  Miss 
Ernest  would  have  said  the  testimony  is  ten  to  one 
against  you.  If  you  had  come  into  court  with  ten  wit 
nesses  against  you,  and  only  one  for  you,  Mr.  Percy,  as 
a  lawyer,  would  have  declared  your  case  utterly  hope 
less. 

"  But  Mr.  Campbell,  at  that  time,  gave  you  several 
other  Lexicons,  among  which  was 

"Robertson's  Thesaurus,  which  defines  it  to  immerse, 
to  wash. 

"Pason. — To  dip,  to  immerse,  to  dye,  because  it  is 
done  by  immersing. 

"Donegan. — To  immerse  repeatedly  into  a  liquid,  to 
submerge,  to  sink. 

"Jones. — Plunge,  dip,  baptize,  bury,  overwhelm. 

"Bass. — To  dip,  immerse,  plunge  in  water.  Baptisma, 
immersion,  clipping. 

"  Stokius. — To  dip,  to  immerse  in  water. 

"  So  we  have  in  all  sixteen  witnesses  who  depose 
that  this  is  its  primary  and  common  meaning.  Sixteen 
who  testify  that  it  must  thus  be  understood  when 
nothing  in  the  context  requires  another  sense.  And 
only  one  who  gives  to  wash  as  its  primary  meaning. 
Mr.  Campbell  also  mentioned  several  others,  whom  he 
said  gave  it  the  same  sense,  and  you  did  not  dispute  his 
word." 

"But  what  of  all  that  ?"  replied  the  Reverend  Doctor 
Rice.  "  I  would  have  set  aside  all  that  array  of  dic 
tionaries  by  quoting  just  one  sentence  from  the  great 
Baptist,  Doctor  Carson,  who  ought  surely  to  under 
stand  what  he  says,  and  who  was  no  friend  to  sprink 
ling  ;  and  yet  he  expressly  says,  '  THAT  ALL  THE  LEXI- 


442  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

CONS  ARE  AGAINST  HIM.'     This  is  testimony  enough  for 
me." 

"  But  it  would  not  have  been  for  Miss  Theodosia  01 
Mr.  Percy.  They  would  have  asked  to  see  the  BOOK 
and  the  place,  and  would  have  read  it  for  themselves, 
and  doing  so,  would  have  been  sure  to  discover  what  you 
must  have  known  before  you  quoted  it,  that  he  does  NOT 
say  that  all  the  Lexicons  are  against  the  Baptists — he 
does  NOT  say  that  all  or  any  of  the  Lexicons  gives 
sprinkling  or  pouring  as  a  meaning  of  the  word — he 
does  NOT  say  that  they  do  not  all  agree  in  giving  dip  or 
its  equivalent  as  the  primary  and  common  meaning. 
'  On  this  point,'  he  says,  '  I  have  no  quarrel  with  the 
Lexicons.  There  is  the  most  complete  harmony  among 
them  in  representing  dip  as  the  primary  meeting  of 
bapto  and  baptize.'  But  Mr.  Carson  denies  that  it  has 
any  secondary  meaning  at  all,  or  that  it  ever  means  any 
thing  else  but  dip  or  immerse.  And  it  is  on  this  point, 
that  he  says,  page  55,  '  lie  has  all  the  Lexicographers 
and  Commentators  against  him.'  I  could  not  have 
satisfied  my  inquirers  with  such  a  misrepresentation, 
even  though  my  conscience  could  have  permitted  me  to 
use  it.  We  all  know  that  the  Lexicons  give  secondary 
meanings  to  these  words,  and  in  our  company  there  was 
no  disposition  to  question  the  propriety  of  their  doing 
so.  But,  sir,  it  has  struck  me  with  surprise,  since  my 
attention  has  been  turned  to  the  subject,  that  not  a 
single  one  of  all  the  seventeen  Lexicons  referred  to  and 
quoted  by  you  and  Mr.  Campbell  give  sprinkle  or 
pour  as  even  a  secondary  meaning.  They  give  wash  and 
cleanse,  but  several  of  them  are  careful  to  explain  that 
it  is  because  things  may  be  washed  and  cleansed  by  dip 
ping  them  in  water.  And  I  have  been  thinking,  espe 
cially  since  I  read  your  piece,  that  what  we  are  accus 
tomed  to  call  baptism  is  not  even  a  washing — for  if  the 


A    DREAM.  443 

Doctor  should  tell  me  to  icash  one  of  my  children,  who 
was  sick,  with  warm  water,  I  am  sure  I  should  not  feel 
that  I  had  carried  out  the  prescription  by  dipping  the 
tip  of  my  fingers  in  the  water  and  touching  them  to 
his  forehead.  And  the  truth  is,  sir — I  suppose  I  may 
just  as  well  tell  it — that  since  you  have  made  so  light 
of  all  the  arguments  which  I  advanced  in  our  discussion, 
and  yet  have  given  me  no  better,  nor  told  me  to  which 
of  all  our  Doctors  I  can  go  to  find  any  more  forcible  or 
convincing,  I  begin  to  doubt  whether  we  are  not  both 
mistaken,  and  that  Miss  Ernest  and  her  friends  had 
better  reasons  for  leaving  us  than  I  can  ever  find  for  re 
maining  where  I  am." 

"  Yes,"  exclaimed  Professor  Jones  (who  suddenly 
made  his  appearance,  unaccountably,  as  people  often  do 
in  dreams),  "  I  have  often  thought  how  angry  we  should 
be  if  those  who  owe  obedience  to  us  should  render  it  as 
some  of  us  render  obedience  to  God.  Doctor  Rice,  for 
example,  says  to  a  little  servant  boy  on  Saturday  night, 
go  wash  yourself,  or  go  bathe  yourself,  and  put  on  clean 
clothing  for  the  Sabbath.  The  servant,  instead  of  bath 
ing  his  whole  body,  takes  a  few  drops  of  water  in  the 
palm  of  his  hand  and  pours  it  on  the  top  of  his  head. 
'  You  little  rascal,'  Doctor  Rice  would  say,  '  why  did  you 
not  wash  yourself  as  I  directed  you  ?' 

"  '  I  did  wash  myself,  sir.' 

" '  You  did !  Do  you  call  that  washing  yourself  ? 
Why,  you  did  not  even  wet  your  scalp.  Come  here, 
sir  ;  I'll  teach  you  how  to  trifle  with  my  commandments.' 

"  '  Please,  sir  !'  exclaims  the  lad.  '  Please  sir,  don't 
punish  me ;  I  am  sure,  sir,  I  did  wash  myself ;  I  can 
prove  it  to  you,  sir.' 

" '  Why,  you  little  impertinent.  You  just  now  con 
fessed  that  you  only  put  a  few  drops  of  water  on  the 
top  of  your  head.' 


444  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

'"I  know  it,  sir ;  but  that  was  washing  myself,  sir ;  I 
can  prove  it  by  the  united  testimony  of  all  your  DOC 
TORS  OF  DIVINITY,  including  the  Reverend  Doctor  N. 
L.  Rice.  You  may  be  so  angry,  sir,  just  now,  that  you 
don't  remember  it,  but  in  your  Lexington  debate  you 
said  again  and  again  that  baptize  means  to  wash,  and 
of  course  wash  means  to  baptize,  and  when  you  and 
our  other  DOCTORS  OF  DIVINITY  baptize,  you  only  put  a 
few  drops  of  water  on  the  person's  head.  Besides,  you 
said  again  and  again,  that  wash  was  a  '  generic'  word  (I 
believe  that  was  it,  sir),  and  might  be  performed  in 
any  way,  and  as  this  is  the  way  which  all  the  great 
DOCTORS  OF  DIVINITY  use  when  GOD  tells  them  'to 
wash'  people,  I  am  sure,  sir,  you  could  not  expect  me  to 
do  more  in  obedience  to  your  command  than  you  do  in 
obedience  to  His.' 

"But  let  it  pass;  I  have  just  called  in,  Doctor,  to 
thank  you  for  dealing  so  kindly  with  me  in  your  article 
on  Theodosia.  It  is  customary  when  one  has  been 
driven  by  his  convictions  of  duty  to  leave  some  denomi 
nations  for  others  for  those  he  leaves  to  seek  by  defama 
tion  to  destroy  his  peace  and  injure  his  usefulness.  It 
is  customary  to  attack  his  character  and  impugn  his 
motives.  And  the  same  course  has  sometimes  been 
adopted  to  counteract  the  influence  of  a  controversial 
BOOK.  When  its  arguments  could  not  be  met  and 
refuted,  the  moral  or  Christian  character  of  the  author 
has  been  assailed  with  a  malignity  which  argues  very 
little  for  the  piety  of  the  assailants,  and  of  itself 
affords  prima  facie  evidence  that  there  is  something 
rotten  in  the  system  which  requires  such  foul  means  to 
sustain  it,  and  breeds  such  rancorous  spirits  to  contend 
for  it.  But  it  has  gratified  me  much  to  see  that  you 
speak  of  me  in  '  sorrow  more  than  anger ;'  that  you  are 
more  inclined  to  pity  than  abuse.  You  think  me  weak 


A    DREAM.  445 

and  foolish,  and  that  is  the  worst  of  it.  I  could  expect 
no  less  than  that,  for  we  all  are  apt  to  think  dis 
paragingly  of  the  intellect  which  cannot  see  what  seems 
to  ours  as  clear  as  light.  You  thought  that  my  friend, 
Mr.  Johnson,  was  simple,  because  he  failed  to  convince 
my  niece  and  myself;  and  I  might  have  expected  that 
you  would  think  still  worse  of  me,  because  I  could  not 
be  convinced.  If  Mr.  Johnson  had  used  all  the  argu 
ments  which  he  could  have  found  in  the  works  of  Pres 
byterian  Doctors  of  Divinity,  you  might '  with  good 
reason  have  thought  him  a  simpleton  indeed. 

"  He  contended,  with  Doctor  Miller  and  other  doctors, 
that  the  word  baptize  means  to  sprinkle  or  to  pour,  as 
truly  as  to  immerse. 

"  Like  several  others,  and  yourself  among  them,  he 
denied  that  John's  baptism  was  Christian  baptism. 

"  Like  you  and  all  the  rest  he  denied  that  Jesus  went 
into  the  water,  or  that  John  baptized  in  Jordan,  but 
asserted  that  he  sprinkled  the  people  standing  in  rows 
on  the  bank. 

"  Like  you  and  the  other  doctors,  he  denied  that  there 
was  water  enough  to  be  had  in  Jerusalem  to  immerse 
three  thousand,  or  time  enough  to  do  it. 

"  Like  you  and  the  other  doctors,  he  made  an  argu 
ment  upon  the  design  of  baptism,  as  being  better 
symbolized  by  sprinkling  than  immersion. 

"  Like  you  and  the  other  docters,  he  made  a  very 
plausible  argument  upon  the  Pentecostic  outpouring  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  as  baptism. 

"  Like  you  and  some  of  the  other  doctors,  he  made 
the  strongest  argument  that  it  is  possible  to  make  upon 
'  with  water"1  as  the  translation  of  'en  udati.'  And  he 
gave  to  each  and  every  one  of  these  arguments  all  the 
force  to  which  it  was  logically  entitled,  and  if  they 
3ould  not  stand  befoi'e  the  simple,  common  sense  of  a 
38 


446  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

strong-minded,  earnest-hearted  girl,  it  was  not  his  fault, 
but  the  fault  of  the  arguments.  If  he  had  presented 
all  the  arguments  which  he  could  have  found  gravely 
set  forth  by  Doctors  of  Divinity,  little  Edwin  himself 
would  have  laughed  him  out  of  countenance.  What  if, 
like  Doctor  Dwight,  he  had  declared  that  '  Christ  him 
self  has  expressly  taught  us  that  immersion  is  unessen 
tial  to  the  administration  of  this  ordinance.' 

"When  he  said  to  Peter,  John  xiii.:  'He  that  is 
washed  needeth  not  care  to  wash  his  feet,  but  is  clean 
every  whit,'  from  which  the  learned  doctor  concludes 
that  '  a  symbolical  washing  is  perfect  although  applied 
only  to  the  feet;  as  perfect  as  if  it  were  applied  also  to 
the  hands  and  the  head,  and  if  this  construction  be 
admitted,  it  must  also  be  admitted  that  the  declaration 
is  general  and  extends  to  every  other  symbolical  wash 
ing,  and  therefore  to  baptism,  unless  excluded  by  some 
plain  exception.'  See  Dwight's  Divinity,  vol.  4,  pp. 
150,  151 

"  So  also  another  Doctor  of  Divinity  declares,  that 
'  Christ  discountenanced  the  practice  of  immersion  in 
religious  purifications.  He  that  is  washed,  said  he  to 
Peter,  needeth  not  save  to  wash  his  feet,  but  is  clean 
every  whit.'  John  xiii.  9,  10.  By  reading  this  text  in  its 
connection,  we  will  perceive  that  so  far  from  introducing 
the  practice  of  washing  the  body  all  over  as  a  religious 
rite,  he  discouraged  it,  by  declaring  it  unnecessary,  and 
by  refusing  to  gratify  Peter,  who  wished  to  have  the 
water  applied  to  him  in  a  more  profuse  manner  than 
the  Saviour  was  using  it.'  See  James  Wood,  D.  D.,  on 
Christian  Baptism,  page  35.  If  Doctor  Wood  is  con 
sistent  with  himself,  he  applies  the  water  to  the  baby's 
dear  little  foot,  for  it  was  the  application  of  water  to 
the  '  hands'  or  the  '  head'  that  Jesus  '  discountenanced' 
and  '  discouraged.'  I  presume,  therefore,  that  Doctor 


A   DREAM.  447 

Wood  is  not  only  a  Pedobaptist,  but  a  pedal-baptist,  a 
foot-baptizer. 

"  What  if  Mr.  Johnson  had  said,  as  more  than  one 
of  the  DOCTORS  OP  DIVINITY  has  done,  that  there  is  the 
same  proof  that  the  Eunuch  immersed  Philip  that  there 
is  that  Philip  immersed  the  Eunuch?  Yet  the  great 
Doctor  Miller  says :  '  There  is  the  same  evidence  that 
Philip  was  plunged  as  that  the  Eunuch  was.'  And 
Doctor  Dwight  argues  that  if  '  et's'  means  into,  and  '  ek' 
means  out  of,  in  the  narrative  of  this  transaction,  they 
were  both  plunged  twice  and  the  Eunuch  three  times. 
Here  are  his  words :  '  The  declarations  here  made,  are 
made  concerning  the  Eunuch  and  Philip;  alike  of  both  it 
is  said  that  they  went  down  into  the  water,  if  we  render  eis 
into ;  of  both  also  it  is  said  that  when  they  came  up  out 
of  the  water,  if  we  render  the  word  ek  out  of.  Now  let 
us  see  what  will  be  the  true  import  of  the  passage 
according  to  this  method  of  construing  the  words  in 
question,  and  they  went  down  both  into  the  water,  both 
Philip  and  the  Eunuch.  That  is,  they  were  both  plunged. 
And'  he  baptized  him,  that  is,  Philip  plunged  the  Eunuch. 
And  when  they  were  come  up  out  of  the  water ;  that  is, 
when  they  had  both  been  plunged  a  second  time  and 
risen  up  from  their  immersion,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord 
caught  away  Philip.  In  other  words,  they  were  both 
plunged  twice  and  the  Eunuch  three  times.'  See 
Dwight's  Divinity,  vol.  4,  p.  350,  Sermon  on  Baptism. 

"  Suppose  that  Mr.  Johnson,  like  Doctor  Wood,  had 
gravely  argued  that  the  Eunuch  must  have  been  baptized 
by  sprinkling,  because  he  had  been  reading  in  Isaiah, 
and  Isaiah  somewhere,  though  not  in  the  passage  quoted 
as  that  which  he  was  reading,  says  that  Messiah  shall 
sprinkle  many  nations,  while  every  scholar  knows  that 
in  the  Septuagint,  which  it  is  most  likely  he  was  read 
ing,  the  word  sprinkle  does  not  occur,  but  '  thaumasonlai1 


448  TIIEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

astonish,  '  so  shall  ho  astonish  many  nations.'  And 
Doctor  Adam  Clarke  says  it  is  the  best  rendering  of  the 
Hebrew.  That  the  Jews  so  understood  the  Hebrew  is 
evident  from  their  so  translating  it ;  and  therefore, 
whether  the  Eunuch  read  Hebrew  or  Greek,  ho  could 
have  found  no  such  word  as  sprinkle. 

"  But  though  your  Doctors  of  Divinity  had  talked 
volumes  of  such  nonsense,  my  friend,  Mr.  Johnson,  had 
sense  enough  to  see  that  arguments  like  these  could  not 
be  expected  to  stand  the  scrutiny  of  earnest,  inquiring 
common  sense,  even  in  a  simple  girl,  and  therefore  would 
not  offer  them.  He  used  the  best  you  have,  and  did  the 
best  he  could  with  them.  I  grant  that  both  he  and  I 
used  some  very  simple  arguments;  nay,  that  all  our 
arguments  were  silly  as  long  as  we  argued  against  the 
truth,  for  every  false  argument  must  be  foolish,  but 
neither  of  us  was  as  silly  as  some  of  you  DOCTORS  OP 
DIVINITY,  and  since  you  have  yourself  condemned  and 
ridiculed  the  very  arguments  by  which  not  only  he  but 
thousands  of  your  people  are  deluded  and  prevented 
from  yielding  obedience  to  Christ,  I  trust  both  he  and 
they  will  see  their  folly,  abandon  their  errors,  obey 
their  Lord,  and  like  my  niece  and  myself,  unite  with 
his  visible  church." 


CHAPTER    II. 

I  saw,  in  my  dream,  that  Pastor  Johnson 
sat  with  his  good  old  wife,  in  their  own  quiet 
room ;  but  his  countenance  was  sad,  and  she 
saw  that  his  heart  was  troubled,  and  knew  that 
something  had  gone  amiss  with  him  during  his 
absence.  With  true  womanly  tact  she  sought 
to  find  out  what  it  had  been  without  seeming  to  ask. 

"  I  hope,  my  dear,  you  had  a  pleasant  journey,  and 
met  with  no  disagreeable  accidents  by  the  way." 
"  It  was  as  pleasant  as  I  had  expected." 
"  You  saw  Doctor  Rice,  of  course.     I  have  been  told 
since  you  started  that  he  is  a  perfect  model  of  a  Chris 
tian  gentleman,  and  would  certainly  explain  every  thing 
to  your  satisfaction.     Did  you  not  find  it  so  ?" 

"  Gentleman  !  Why,  yes ;  I  suppose  he  is  what  people 
call  a  gentleman — a  polished,  pleasant  gentleman — and 
he  made,  probably,  what  he  thinks  the  best  apology  that 
the  case  admits  of." 

"  But  you  were  not  quite  satisfied  with  it  ?  Well,  I 
don't  wonder.  It  was  too  bad  to  call  you  a  greater 
simpleton  than  could  be  found  in  all  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  But  what  explanation  did  he  make  ?" 

"My  dear  wife,"  said  the  pastor,  suddenly  raising  his 
eyes,  and  looking  earnestly  into  her  face,  "  I  begin  to 
think  that  our  Doctors  of  Divinity  are  no  more  to  be 
confided  in  than  other  people,  and  that  Miss  Ernest, 
Esquire  Percy,  and  Professor  Jones,  were  right  in  just 
casting  all  their  assertions  aside,  and  going  to  the 
sacred  Word  and  hunting  out  its  teachings  for  them 
selves." 

(419) 


450  THEODOSIA    ERNEST. 

"  Why,  Mr.  Johnson  !" 

"  Yes,  my  dear  ;  I  never  mean  to  trust  the  bare  asser 
tion  of  any  Doctor  of  Divinity  again  as  long  as  I  live. 
Just  think  of  it  now — Doctor  Rice  laughs  at  my  argu 
ments  in  favor  of  sprinkling,  and  at  Mr.  Percy's,  and 
at  those  of  Professor  Jones.  He  holds  them  up  to  the 
scorn  of  the  world.  He  speaks  of  them  as  though  they 
were  almost  beneath  contempt ;  and  yet  you  and  I 
know  very  well  that  they  are  arguments  which  I  borrowed, 
EVERY  ONE  OP  THEM,  from  a  Doctor  of  Divinity.  They 
are  the  very  same  arguments  which  have  been  employed 
by  Doctor  Eagleton,  by  Doctor  Newton,  by  Doctor 
Wood,  by  Doctor  Summers,  by  Doctor  Miller,  by  Doctor 
Dwight,  and  even  by  Doctor  Rice  himself.  But  to  make 
the  world  believe  that  we  have  some  stronger  and  better 
arguments  he  laughs  at  these,  as  though  they  were  the 
mere  twaddle  of  the  veriest  ignoramus  in  all  Christen 
dom.  But  does  he  bring  forward  any  stronger  or  any 
better  ones?  Does  he  point  to  the  chapter  and  the 
page  in  the  works  of  our  Doctors  of  Divinity,  where 
they  presented  any  thing  more  convincing?  So  far 
from  it,  he  was  obliged  to  own  to  Professor  Jones, 
whom  I  met  at  his  house,  that  he  had  himself  employed 
these  very  arguments  in  his  debate  with  Campbell ;  and 
the  Professor  also  pointed  out  to  him  the  volumes  and 
the  pages  in  the  works  of  our  greatest  doctors,  where 
they  had  employed  arguments  so  much  sillier  than  mine, 
that  I  would  have  been  ashamed  to  mention  them  to  a 
shrewd,  sensible  girl,  like  Theodosia.  Now,  what  am  I 
as  a  Christian  man  and  a  Christian  minister  to  do  ?  I 
have  all  the  time  believed  that  we  were  right,  and, 
therefore,  I  so  preached  and  practiced.  But  you  know 
I  would  sooner  cut  off  this  right  hand  than  use  it  to 
sprinkle  another  babe  if  Christ  does  not  require  it.  It 
was  because  I  trusted  to  the  teaching  of  our  doctors 


A   DREAM.  453 

that  I  thought  he  must  be  right ;  but  when  these 
doctors  hold  up  these  very  arguments,  by  which  I  was 
convinced,  to  the  scorn  of  the  religious  world,  and  yet 
give  me  no  better  in  the  place  of  them,  I  can't  help 
thinking  there  is  something  rotten  in  the  system  some 
where. 

"  I  intend,  God  helping  me,  to  search  into  the  Scrip 
ture  teachings  for  myself.  I  remember  that  we  could 
not  find  a  single  command  to  baptize  infants,  nor  a 
single  example  of  one  baptized.  I  remember  that  our 
own  best  commentators,  such  as  Barnes  in  this  country, 
and  Olshausen  in. Europe,  say  there  is  nothing  about  it  in 
the  text  I  most  relied  upon,  '  Suffer  the  little  children 
to  come  unto  me.'  I  remember  that  we  could  not  find 
one  single  text,  which  even  our  own  Doctors  of  Divinity 
all  agree  upon  as  requiring  or  justifying  the  practice — 
that  even  concerning  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  which 
Doctor  McNought  thinks  is  our  strongest  fortress. 
Professor  Stuart  expressly  declares,  in  his  commentary 
on  Genesis  xvii.  and  Galatians,  that  they  can  afford  it 
no  countenance  whatever ;  and  as  to  sprinkling,  even 
Doctor  Rice  himself  did  not,  and  dare  not  say  that  the 
Greek  word  baptize  in  the  Scriptures  has  ever  been 
truly  rendered  -sprinkle  by  any  reliable  Lexicon  or  emi 
nent  critic.  He  only  contends  that  it  may  be  rendered 
to  wash,  and  then  says  that  washing  may  be  done  by 
sprinkling  a  dozen  drops  or  less  of  water  on  the  person's 
head.  But  can  it  be  thus  done  ?  If  you  or  I  should 
tell  one  of  the  children  to  wash,  not  his  face,  but  to  wash 
himself,  would  he  consider  it  a  full  and  complete  obedi 
ence  if  he  should  only  dip  the  tip  of  his  fingers  in 
water,  and  touch  them  on  his  head,  or  face,  or  feet,  or 
hands ;  for  I  don't  see  as  there  is  any  more  propriety  in 
touching  one  part  than  another." 

"I  don't  think  we  would,  my  dear,"  replied  the  good 


454  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

woman.  "And  if  this  be  so,  I  am  sure  it  must  be  some 
wicked  MOCKERY  to  do  that  in  obedience  to  God's  com 
mands,  which  we  would  consider  as  the  veriest  trifling 
if  it  were  done  in  the  place  of  actual  obedience  to  a 
similar  command  by  us." 

"I  am  afraid,  my  dear,"  resumed  the  pastor,  "I  am 
awfully  afraid  we  have  been  wrong.  God  knows  I 
meant  to  do  right — God  knows  I  verily  believed  that  I 
was  right ;  but  this  communication  of  Doctor  Rice  has 
made  the  case  look  fearfully  dark  to  me. 

"  I  have  thought,  and  prayed,  and  thought  again,  until 
my  brain  is  dizzy.  I  can't  help  seeing  Jesus  baptized, 
as  Mark  says,  'Eis,J  not  merely  in,  but  into  the  river  of 
Jordan.  I  can't  help  seeing  the  Eunuch  and  Philip 
going  down  into  the  water,  then  the  baptism,  then  the 
coming  up  out  of  the  water.  I  fear  our  doctors  twist 
and  pervert  the  words  in  trying  to  make  them  mean 
any  thing  less.  I  fear  some  of  them  almost  prevaricate 
to  hide  the  simple  and  natural  meaning  of  the  language. 
But  oh,  it  is  a  dreadful  thought  that  we  have  all  the 
time  been  wrong ;  that  I,  a  minister  of  Christ,  have  all 
my  life  been  the  advocate  of  error,  and  have  been  doing 
in  his  name  that  which  he  never  commanded,  and  having 
constantly  undone  that  which  he  actually  did  commis 
sion  all  his  ministers  to  do.  I  must  study  more  about 
it.  I  must  pray  more  over  it.  But  if  I  find  it  so — 
much  as  I  love  my  people,  much  as  I  love  my  church, 
much  as  I  love  my  brethren  in  the  ministry,  much  as  I 
love  the  doctrines  and  the  ordinances  which  I  have  so 
long  taught  and  administered,  I  trust  I  love  the  truth 
and  love  my  Saviour  better  than  them  all,  and  I  will  go 
down  into  the  water  as  the  Eunuch  did,  and  Mr.  Percy 
shall  himself  baptize  me,  as  Philip  did  the  Eunuch,  and 
when  we  come  up  out  of  the  water  I  trust  to  meet  the 


A   DREAM.  457 

Spirit  of  the  Lord  ready  to  find  a  place  for  me  to  labor, 
and  to  bless  my  work." 

****** 

Then  I  saw,  in  my  dream,  some  few  weeks  after  this, 
that  Mr.  Percy  had  returned  from  his  visit  to  Nashville 
and  the  hill  country  of  Tennessee  (an  account  of  which 
is  given  in  the  second  volume  of  Theodosia  Ernest),  and 
he  was  standing  in  the  same  place  where  Theodosia  had 
gone  down  into  the  water.  The  company  that  stood 
upon  the  bank  consisted  of  a  great  multitude.  Many 
of  them  had  walked  in  a  procession  from  the  beautiful 
new  Baptist  meeting-house,  which  stood  near  the  old 
school-house  where  Theodosia  had  been  admitted  to  the 
visible  company  of  Christ's  people.  Many  others  had 
come  from  the  magnificent  old  building,  in  which,  until 
recently,  Pastor  Johnson  had  been  accustomed  to  min 
ister  for  many  years.  Many  had  come  from  other 
places  of  worship,  and  not  a  few  were  there  who  seldom 
witnessed  any  act  of  religion  but  one  like  this,  which 
called  them  out  merely  to  gratify  their  curiosity.  But 
vast  and  various  as  was  the  crowd,  they  were  silent,  and 
solemn,  and  tearful,  when  the  old  man  stopped  at  the 
verge  of  the  water,  turned  to  their  expectant  gaze,  and 
briefly  gave  the  reasons  why,  following  his  Saviour's 
example,  and  in  obedience  to  his  positive  command, 
which  he  could  no  longer  misunderstand,  he  was  about 
to  "  be  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism." 

Those  reasons  we  have  not  space  to  tell  as  he  told 
them  that  day.  It  is  enough  for  us  merely  to  state  that, 
after  earnest  prayer  for  guidance  from  above,  he  had 
resolved  to  "search  the  Scriptures"  and  discard  the 
doctors.  That  he  had  been  unable  to  find  any  sprink 
ling  commanded  or  practiced  as  baptism.  Nor  could  he 
find  a  single  text  which  either  commands  or  justifies 
the  baptism  of  babes,  Presbyterian  Doctors  of  Divinity 
39 


458  THEODOSIA   ERNEST. 

themselves  being  judges,  since  each  text  that  one  may 
claim  as  teaching  it,  a  half  a  dozen  others  will  declare 
has  no  relation  to  the  case. 

"There  are,"  said  he,  in  conclusion,  "many  of  my  own 
former  people  here.  I  see  their  once  familiar  faces. 
Some  look  on  me  with  pity  ;  and  could  I  have  continued 
to  practice,  in  my  Master's  name,  what  he  has  nowhere 
commanded,  I  should  need  their  pity. 

"  Some  look  on  me  with  heartfelt  sorrow ;  and  I  see 
even  now  the  traces  which  their  tears  have  marked  upon 
their  loving  faces.  My  friends,  I  am  happier  now  than 
I  have  been  for  many  months.  Doubt  has  IIOAV  given 
way  to  certainty,  hesitation  to  decision — the  struggle, 
the  long,  agonizing,  heart-rending  struggle  between  old 
attachments  and  personal  inclination,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  duty  to  my  Lord  and  Master  on  the  other,  has 
ceased  at  length,  and  I  have  peace  with  God  and  peace 
with  my  own  conscience. 

"  It  may  be  there  are  some  who  look  on  me  with  anger ; 
some  who  will  follow  me  with  bitter  words  ;  some  who 
may  malign  my  motives,  and  seek  to  destroy  my  charac 
ter  ;  some  who  may  send  out  rumors  that  their  old  pastor 
was  deranged,  or  something  worse,  and  that  the  people 
whom  he  served  so  long  were  glad  to  be  so  easily  rid  of 
him.  Such  things  have  been  said  of  others,  and,  doubt 
less,  will  be  said  of  me.  But,  though  you  may  revile 
me,  I  will  love  you  still.  Though  you  may  persecute 
me,  I  will  still  pray  for  you,  and  long  and  strive  to  bring 
you  to  a  knowledge  of  the  whole  truth  of  the  glorious 
gospel  of  my  blessed  God.  And  since  you  cannot  make 
me  hate  you,  you  cannot  harm  me  by  your  hatred.  I 
part  with  you  all  in  the  love  of  the  gospel,  and  pray  for 
all,  that  God  will  help  you  see,  as  I  have  seen,  the  sin 
and  danger  of  setting  aside  the  ordinance  of  Christ, 


A   DREAM.  459 

and  teaching  for  doctrines  the  traditions  and  command 
ments  of  men." 

Then  they  went  down  into  the  water,  both  Mr.  Percy 
and  the  former  pastor,  and  he  baptized  him ;  and  they 
came  up  out  of  the  water,  and  I  awoke — and  behold 
it  was  a  dream!  And  yet,  kind  reader,  was  it  ALL  a 
dream  ? 


THE    END 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


Form  L9 — 15m-10,'48 (B1039) 444 


UNIVERSITY  ol  CALIFORNIA 

AT 

LOS  ANGELES 
LIBRARY 


Dayton- — 

1525     T:  eodosia 
D667t    Ernest. 
1866 

tr     1 


PS 

1525 

D337t 

1866 

v.l 


iiiTiri1ii0iiiiiiLiiRARYFACiLiTY 

A  A      000035000  9 


